Full text of "Providing the balance of power : Ontario Hydro's plan to serve customers' electricity needs."

See other formats

Pablicatons

PERV CUSTOMERS

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2024 with funding from
University of Toronto

https://archive.org/details/39302008080082

keeE cE cl Ry be Galea Non Nd Ea Lin

EN VeRO NM: EN TALE
NeNs AcE Yoo LS

5
ty

Pim eles
eerie;

i oa

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
]

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1

9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

2.1 Common Elements
2-1

2.2 Major Supply Cases
2-2

2.3 Candidate Sites
2-10
2.4 Transmission Requirements
2-10

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS PROCESS

3.1 General Assumptions
vd ee Method
3.3 Evaluation aoe and Background
3.3.1 Natural 5 tees Criteria
3.3.2 Social eS Criteria
3-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4,0 EVALUATION OF COMMON ELEMENTS
IN ALTERNATIVE PLANS

4.1 Demand Management
4.2 nial Generation
4.3 eae Generation
4.4 Station Relernicecs
4.5 Mano Purchase
4-

5.0 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG
ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY PLANS

5.1 Typical Environmental Effects and
Mitigation Associated with
Major Supply Options
5-1]

5.2 Evaluation of Case Differences
5-6
5.2.1 Case 23
5-8
5.2.2 Case 22
5-18
5.2.3 Case 15
5-24
5.2.4 Case 24
5-30
5.2.5 Case 26
5-34

5.3. Sensitivity Considerations
5-40
5.3.1 Load Growth
5-40
5.3.2 Planning Period
5-40
5.3.3 Siting
5-42
5.3.4 Regulatory Changes
5-46

6.0 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT
6.1 Natural Environment
6-1
6.2 Social Environment
6-11
6.3 Residual Effects
6-14
6.4 Conclusions
6-16

7,0 REFERENCES
We

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

List OF APPENDICES

Appendix A
Natural and Social Environment Evaluation
Assumptions
A-1
Appendix B
Alternative Plans - Common Elements
B-1
Appendix C

| Summary of Typical Environmental Effects and:

Mitigation
C-]

List OF TABLES

Table 2-1
Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 23
2-3

Table 2-2
Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 22
a4

Table 2-3
Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 15
2-4

Table 2-4
Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 24
2-7

Table 2-5
Major Supply Additions by 2014 - Case 26
2-7

Table 2-6
Illustrative Siting Cases
Ut
Table 2-7

Major Radial Transmission Requirements for

Incorporation of Major Supply
2-13
Table 5-1

Environmental Performance of Fossil Fuelled

Supply Options
5-3
Table 5-2

Natural Environment - Cumulative Effects

1989-2014
5-7

Table 5-3
Siting Requirements for Load Growth Cases

5-39

Table 5-4

Changes in Natural Environment Factors
- Median to Upper Load Forecast

5-4]

Table 5-5

Comparison of Cumulative Effects at 2014 and

2039: Natural Environment
5-43
Table 5-6
Candidate Sites — Potential Environmental
Concerns
5-44
Table 5-7
Potential Regulatory Changes Affecting
Demand/Supply Planning in the Period
1989-2014
5-45
Table 6-1

- Natural Environemnt - Summary Comparison |

6-2
Table A-1
Natural Environmental Analysis
A=2
Table A-2
Trace Element Emissions
A-4
Table B-1
Electrical Efficiency Improvements
B-2
Table B-2
Load Shifting
B-2
Table B-3
Capacity Interruptible Loads
B-2
Table B-4
Total Demand Management Demand -
Reduction
B-2
Table B-5
Demand Displacement Non-utility Generation
B-2
Table B-6
Purchase Non-utility Generation
B-3
Table B-7
Total Non-utility Generation
B-3

Table B-8
Manitoba Purchase
B-3
Table B-9
Hydraulic Plan
B-4
Table C-1

| Conventional Steam Cycle (CSC) - Coal Fired |

C-1
Table C-2
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC)
C-4
Table C-3
Nuclear (CANDU)
C-7
Table C4
Combined Cycle Plants (CC)
C-10
Table C-5
Combustion Turbine Units
C-12
Table C-6
Hydraulic
C-14
Table C-7
Purchases
C-17
Table C-8
Demand Management
C-19
Table C-9
NUG - Municipal
C-20
Table C—10
NUG - Small Hydraulic
C-22
Table C-11
NUG - Natural Gas Cogeneration
C-24
Table C—-12
NUG - Wood Watse
C-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1
Demand/Supply Plan Evaluation Criteria
Figure 2-1
Alternative Cases - Energy Production
by Source
So
Figure 2-2
New Major Supply - Case 15
2-5

Figure 2-3
New Major Supply - Case 26
2-6

Figure 2-4
New Major Supply - Case 23
2-8
Figure 2-5
New Major Supply - Case 24
2-9
Figure 2-6
New Major Supply - Case 22
2-12
Figure 2-7
Candidate Site Locations
2-14
Figure 3-1
Demand/Supply Plans - Planning Process
3-2

Figure 4-1
Non-utility Generation Emissions

4-3

Figure 5-1

Non-renewable Resource Use

5-9

Figure 5-2

Water Use - Mining and Generation

5-10

Figure 5-3

Land Use
5-1]

Figure 5-4
Atmospheric Emissions (Radionuclides)
5-12
Figure 5-5
Atmospheric Emissions (Conventional)
5-15
Figure 5-6
Water Effluents
5-16
Figure 5—7
Waste Production
5-17
Figure 5-8
Case 23 — Resource Use Indices
5-19
Figure 5-9
Case 23 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices
5-20
Figure 5-10
Case 22 — Resource Use Indices
5-21
Figure 5—11
Case 22 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices
5-22
Figure 5-12
Case 15 — Resource Use Indices
5-25
Figure 5-13
Case 15 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices
5=27
Figure 5-14
Case 24 - Resource Use Indices
5-29
Figure 5-15
Case 24 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices
5-31
Figure 5—16
Case 26 — Resource Use Indices
5-33
Figure 5-17
Case 26 - Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices
5-35
Figure 5-18
Atmospheric Emissions - Median and Upper
Forecasts
5-37

Figure 6—1
Non-renewable Resource Use Index
— All Cases
6-3
Figure 6-2
Land Use Index — All Cases
6-4
Figure 6-3
Water Use Index - All Cases
6-5
Figure 6-4
Typical Water Use and Land Use Allocation
for Cases
6-6
Figure 6-5
Atmospheric Emissions Index - All Cases
6-7
Figure 6-6
CO2 Produced Using Different Electricity
Generation Processes
6-8
Figure 6-7
Radionuclide Index - All Cases
6-9
Figure 6-8
Thermal Discharge Index — All Cases
6-10
Figure 6-9
Waste Production Index - All Cases
6-11
Figure 6-10
Comparison Summary
6-15

Sa
Srp re ro

rif i
tet
ae ae

- offs in order to reach an acceptable,
: effective solution.

: mental standpoint, there are many complex

: in selecting a plan. This document identifies

social

Environmental Analysis

- environmental advantages and disadvantages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In any assessment of future industrial developments, concern for

the environment will continue to be a top priority.

The implementation of a demand/supply plan will have both positive

and negative effects on the natural and social environment in Ontario.

: No single demand/supply plan can both :
: meet future energy needs and avoid the |
: full range of environmental issues. 3
Ultimately, any plan must balance advan- :
7 tages and disadvantages and requires trade- |

Froma technical as well as an environ- |

- choices and combinations (technologies, .
timing, etc.) which have to be considered |

: and describes the potential natural and

environmental effects

of |

- demand/supply plan alternatives, and pro- :
: vides an assessment of their advantages
' and disadvantages.

The environmental criteria are grouped :
as follows: ;

Natural Environmental Criteria

: Resource Use
: Non-renewable resources

Land use

: Water use

Emissions /Effluents/Waste

: Atmospheric emissions

Aquatic effluents
Solid waste production

Social Environmental Criteria

- Socio-economic Effects

: This environmental analysis has been pre- :
: pared in support of Ontario Hydro’s 7
Demand/Supply Plan. Approval of the :
requirement and rationale for certain plan
: components is being requested under
: Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. :

The analysis consists of three major com- »

- ponents: development of environmental cri-
' teria; a comparative analysis of alternative
- demand/supply plans; and a summary of :

: Regional employment

Regional economic development
Local community impacts

Societal Considerations

Social acceptance
Special/sensitive groups
Lifestyle impacts

Distribution of risks and benefits

Alternative plans are analyzed in three stages:

' Initially, there is a discussion of the potential —

- environmental effects associated with com- |
- mon elements, i.e., those components which |
are included in all plans. The common ;

: elements include:

: Demand management
: Non-utility generation
: Hydraulic generation
: Station rehabilitation

: Manitoba purchase

Secondly, the report evaluates the differences :
: among the alternative major supply options :
: and Cases. It discusses potential environmental :
: effects, together with potential mitigation :

- and/or compensation for dealing with any _

: anticipated adverse effects.

Finally, the study concludes with a summary 2
: of the advantages and disadvantages of each 2
: plan, from the perspective of the natural and :
: social environmental effects likely to occur. |
All plans reflect a serious commitment to
: mitigating and controlling environmental
: effects. In addition, the plans contemplate
: that additional demand management programs, 2
: and the use of renewable resources for electricity :
: generation, will continue to be given high
: priority. However, there are residual environ-
: mental effects that are evident by the end of :
: the planning period. These include continued :
: use of non-renewable resources, water and 2
: land, emissions of acid gas and COs, and pro-
: duction of solid waste. All plans also offer a :
: range of potential social benefits, including :
: increased employment and regional devel-
: opment opportunities. Potential adverse social 2
: effects relate to localized community impacts :
: associated mainly with the supply components :

of a preferred plan.

Ongoing efforts by Ontario Hydro in the :
_ following areas will provide opportunities to |

: further reduce residual effects:

¢ Research and development to facilitate appli- :
cation of best available control technology :
at existing and new stations to provide con- :
: tinuing reductions in overall system emissions :
: and afford a wider operating margin with respect :
: to existing and anticipated regulations; ;
: ¢ Regular re-evaluations of the trade-offs
: associated with advancement of the phasing :
: of IGCC or other clean coal technologies, :
: with a view to further reducing acid gas 2
and CO, emissions, and waste volumes, over
: General

the long term;

¢ Continued and expanded commitment to :
waste re-use and recycling programs, particularly
in the area of fossil combustion and emission :

- control wastes;

* Continued and expanded commitment to

water re-use and recycling to reduce con- |

sumptive water use and reduce discharges |

to Ontario waterbodies;

¢ Continued and expanded support for waste :
heat utilization projects (e.g., aquaculture) :
to reduce thermal discharges to the environment, :
¢ Continued and expanded commitment to :

promoting compatible uses of land at generating -

stations and along rights-of-way;
¢ Continued and expanded commitment to

reforestation efforts to offset vegetation losses :
due to hydraulic flooding and transmission :
right-of-way clearing. This has ancillary benefits :
of increasing the CO, absorbing vegetative :
sink in Ontario and providing local employ- :

ment opportunities;

¢ Continued commitment to public consul-
tation and community impact management |
in dealing with potentially affected individuals |

and communities.

<Executive Summary>
2

Implementation of these measures will 7

involve weighing their benefits against financial |

and other societal considerations, to ensure |

that an appropriate balance is struck between |
Ontario’s electricity use and its desire to main- ©

: tain a high level of environmental quality.

Conclusions

Nine conclusions can be drawn from the envi-

ronmental analysis:

¢ None of the alternative plans is clearly
superior with respect to all natural and

social environmental criteria.

_ © Achieving acceptable environmental effects

siting, design, construction, and mitigation :

: for the alternative plans will require careful |

measures for the various plan components. |”

_ Project environmental assessments will address

these factors.

Common Elements

¢ The high priority common elements in the :
plans generally reduce the need for future :
: major supply and promote the utilization of :
renewable resources. :

Demand management options are generally :
favoured from an environmental viewpoint, : |
since the focus of these programs is on using : |

energy more efficiently, thereby reducing energy

use for the same level of service.

Hydraulic generation, certain types of non- :
utility generation, and the Manitoba purchase 2
provide the only true renewable energy sources
utilized in each plan. There will, however, be :
- environmental effects associated with pursuing :
: these options. Environmental assessments will
: be carried out, as required, to ensure that
- these projects are implemented in an envi- :
: ronmentally acceptable manner. |

a a

Hydro’s continuing efforts to increase the |
- contribution from the common elements, par-

ticularly those related to demand management
and renewable resource use, are important

for increasing the plans’ long-term environ- |

- mental sustainability and social acceptance.

; Major Supply Cases

- significantly affect the wastes produced and :
| amount of land utilized by each plan. Most :
| of these impacts are beyond the direct control :
| of Ontario Hydro. Itis assumed, however, that :
| these activities will be regulated to meet appro- :
| priate environmental standards, and that the :
| costs of any remedial measures (e.g., site man- 7
| agement and reclamation) are reflected in

| the price of purchased fuels.

¢ Nuclear-based Cases tend to have the lowest

system non-renewable resource use, atmospheric

' emissions, and total waste production. However,
. they produce higher amounts of radioactive

waste, and utilize higher quantities of water.

: While these radioactive emissions/wastes are
- well managed, they representa source of public
: concern.

radioactive waste production and water use.

However, they consume the highest quantities |
of non-renewable resources and produce sig-

nificantly higher acid gas and CO, emissions,

and waste volumes. While these Cases meet |
current regulatory limits on emissions and |
wastes, problems like acid rain and the green- |

house effect are a source of public concern.

<Executive Summary>
3

: ¢ A Case that utilizes a mix of both fossil and :
: nuclear generation provides a “middle ground” :
: in that it has an intermediate level of non- :
: renewable resource use, atmospheric emissions, :
water use, aquatic effluents, and waste pro- 2
: duction. However, public concerns related :

to both forms of generation will have to be 7

- reconciled.

¢ Regulations related to the environmentare |

: expected to tighten, requiring reduced emission

levels and increased levels of control. Meeting
these regulatory limits will be more difficult

: for the fossil-based Cases, particularly under :

upper load growth.
¢ There are residual environmental effects. :
Ontario Hydro is committed to pursuing a |

variety of measures which offer the potential :
: to further mitigate the residual environmental :
: effects of the Demand/Supply Plan.

cel

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this environmental analysis is to identify and compare major

environmental characteristics of the alternative demand/supply plans,

comment on any significant differences, and provide a broad

analysis of their comparative environmental advantages and disadvantages.

This analysis has been prepared in support :
of Ontario Hydro’s Demand/Supply Plan Report. 3
: Material from this report is summarized in |
: Chapters 14, 15, and 17 of the Demand/Supply :

Plan Report and in the Analysis Report. - © take aleadership role in protecting the envi- 3

Approval of the requirement and rationale

for certain plan components is being requested ;
: under the Environmental Assessment Act.
: Subsequent project environmental assessments
: will ensure that these components are located :
and implemented in an environmentally accept-
able manner, and with opportunities for com- :
: munity input.

| The Demand/Supply Plan Report docu- :
ments alternative demand/supply plans devel- :
oped to meet the electricity requirements of
Ontario to 2014. Itis the third stage of a planning
process that began with the Demand/Supply :
Options Study (Ontario Hydro, 1986b) in 1986. :
This study was followed by a draft
Demand/Supply Planning Strategy (Ontario ;
Hydro, 1987d) which was reviewed by a Select :
: Committee of the Legislature in 1988. The :
: Select Committee’s recommendations (Select :
: Committee, 1988) are reflected in the approved :
: Demand/Supply Planning Strategy (Ontario |
: Hydro, 1989a), released in March, 1989. The
strategy describes the planning principles and
criteria, Figure 1-1, used to develop and evaluate
demand/supply options and plans. |

This environmental analysis supports a num- :

ber of the General Strategic Principles outlined |

in the Demand/Supply Planning Strategy. These :
principles call on Hydro to:

- ronmentand encouraging the social benefits

associated with its activities;
* meet environmental requirements and
standards;
* consider social acceptance;

* consider environmental characteristics and :

- other social considerations which may influence
: the recommended plans; and

¢ include the cost of meeting social and envi-
ronmental requirements in cost evaluations |

of demand/supply options.

Along with comparing the effects of alter-

" native plans, this analysis:

* identifies environmental characteristics and
social considerations for each technology option; :
* discusses appropriate mitigation and com- :
pensation measures; and
¢ identifies the advantages and disadvantages :

of alternative plans.

The Environment Affected
The Demand/Supply Plan could potentially :
affect all parts of Ontario and have some impact -

- outside the province.

1-1

Figure 1-1

Demand/Supply Evaluation Criteria

Demand/Supply Planning Strategy

The primary criteria (which must be met) for eval-

uating and developing recommended plans are:

¢ customer satisfaction o

* reliability standards

* safety requirements and standards

¢ environmental requirements and standards
(worker and public)

° low cost of electricity service

* social acceptance

* technical soundness

¢ flexibility

Secondary criteria, which are considered and

may influence the recommended plans, include:

resource preferences

diversity

resource smoothing |

environmental characteristics (in addition -
to requirements and standards)
public safety characteristics (in addition to

requirements and standards)
economic impact

other social considerations

Demand/Supply Plan

- Within Ontario, the success of demand man- :
: agement programs and the distribution of addi- :
- tional sources of supply, including associated 2
: transmission, will vary regionally. For example, :
: for large, centralized nuclear and fossil generation, 2
: cooling water requirements dictate that they
: be sited on the Great Lakes. Remaining hydraulic :
: projects are mainly located in northern Ontario. :
- Obvious regional differences exist within :
_ the province. Southern Ontario is characterized :
: by high population densities, moderate climatic 2
: conditions, a reliance on industrial /commer- :
: cial/agricultural activity, large numbers of :
: competing uses for a limited, privately-owned :
- land base, and few undisturbed natural areas. :

Conversely, northern Ontario is charac- :

terized by lower population densities, more

severe climatic conditions, a reliance on :
resource-based industry and tourism, and a

large Crown-owned land base having a significant

proportion of natural areas.

In addition to these regional differences, |
there are other characteristics of the Ontario :
environment considered. For example, there :
is an established government objective of main- :
taining high environmental quality throughout :
Ontario. This is reflected in environmental :
regulations and standards governing industrial :
and other activities. The existing and anticipated :
regulatory framework is an important part :

<Introduction - Chapter One>
1-2

' of the operating environment and as such
is considered in the development of any :

: demand/supply plan.

The availability of reliable and reasonably |

: priced electricity has become an accepted part
2 of the existing environment in Ontario. Ina :
2 number of instances, changing industrial pro- 2
2 cesses (e.g., in the pulp and paper and steel 2
2 making sectors) to take advantage of electro- :
: technologies has increased process efficiencies 2
: and economies and, at the same time, improved :

- environmental quality in Ontario.

The nature of the Bulk Electrical System |

: (BES) itself is a critical part of the environment :
: that will be affected by this undertaking. Hence, :
: certain limitations of the existing BES need :
: to be addressed. For example, maintaining 2
: a regional balance between demand and supply :
: is an important principle governing future
: system development. BES considerations are
: discussed more fully in the Plan Report. :

Certain components of the plan will also :

affect areas outside Ontario. For example, :
: there are environmental effects outside Ontario
: related to purchases of fossil fuels in the US :
: (mainly coal) and Western Canada (low-sulphur 2

coal and natural gas). The purchase of power |

: from neighboring utilities will also have asso-

ciated environmental effects. For example, :
the purchase from Manitoba will require addi- |
tional hydraulic development in the Nelson :

' River area and newor upgraded transmission |

interconnections with Ontario Hydro’s Bulk :
Electrical System. :

This broad environmental context has been :
assumed and incorporated into the development :
of criteria and in this environmental analysis. :

The environmental analysis report is :
organized as follows: :
¢ Section 2.0 contains a description of the 2
alternative plans.

* Section 3.0 provides a description and ratio- 7
nale for the method of analysis, as well as a :
discussion of the natural and social environ- :
mental criteria which were developed to evaluate :
the plans.
¢ Section 4.0 describes the potential envi-
ronmental effects of the common elements
- in all the alternative plans, (i.e., demand

management, non-utility generation, hydraulic |

generation, station rehabilitation, and the
Manitoba purchase) and associated potential
mitigation and compensation measures.

: * Section 5.0 discusses the potential comparative :
environmental effects of major supply com-
ponents of each Case and associated mitigation :
and compensation measures. Sensitivity to
- changes in load growth, planning period, siting, :
: and regulatory changes are also discussed. :

<Introduction - Chapter One>
1-3

* Section 6.0 provides an overall assessment,

highlighting natural and social environmental :
- advantages and disadvantages of the alternative |
_ plans, the residual effects of these plans, and

the conclusions of this analysis.

a
<Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis>

9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

To assist in the selection of a Demand/Supply Plan, a number

of alternative plans were developed to demonstrate

and assess the range of acceptable options available to meet

Ontario’s electricity needs over the next 25 years.

: These alternative plans are discussed in Chapters

: 15 and 17 of the Plan Report.

: 2.1 Common Elements

: As noted previously, certain options are com- :
: mon to all plans. These common elements |
are included in all of the alternative :
: Demand/Supply Plans before adding new 7
: major supply facilities is considered. The :
: Demand/Supply Planning Strategy, DSPS,
calls for the maximum economically achiev- :
: able contributions from each of the common :
, elements, thereby reinforcing government :
: and corporate goals of maximizing energy 7

efficiency and utilizing renewable resources. :

' The common elements include:

: ¢ Demand management - programs related

: to end-use energy efficiency improvements

as well as load shifting.

: ¢ Non-utility generation (NUG) - future NUG :
- contributions will likely come from private 2

: hydraulic developments (less than 10 MW)

and gas-fired cogeneration projects. Less than
: 10 percent of cogeneration projects are likely

: to use alternative fuels such as waste wood or |

- municipal solid waste.

¢ Hydraulic generation - future hydraulic gen- |
: eration will be derived from new sites and rede- :
: velopment of some existing sites to take fuller :
: advantage of available flows. Most of the remain- :

ing undeveloped potential is in the Moose River :
_ basin in northeastern Ontario and at Sir Adam :
7 BeckG.S. on the Niagara River (see list of sites :
in Appendix B). ;

The Select Committee on Energy (1988) :
has recommended that, “remaining economic
hydroelectric sites should be developed in an :
orderly and environmentally appropriate man- :
ner” and that, “available hydraulic sites should :
be developed to maximize positive economic
and social impacts to Ontario and Canadian :
economies in an orderly fashion. Such devel- :
opments should also be designed and operated :
to provide positive economic spinoffs and
employment opportunities, particularly in more :
' remote parts of the province”. :
* Station Rehabilitation - rehabilitation will :
take place at many stations within the Bulk :
Electrical System. At hydraulic stations, dam :
safety will be assessed and opportunities to :
upgrade facilities to take fuller advantage of :
- available flows will be undertaken. At nuclear
stations, retubing activities are planned. At fossil
stations, rehabilitation programs are planned :
for Lakeview, Lambton and Nanticoke generating :

- stations during the 1990s to ensure these stations _

operate reliably over their full service life.

¢ Manitoba Purchase - starting in 2000, all :
plans assume that a firm purchase of 1000 |
MW will be in-place from Manitoba. The power _

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
al

|
}
/
4
7

: will be delivered from new hydraulic generation

_ at the Conawapa site on the Nelson River in

northern Manitoba, and requires major -
- upgrades of interconnections between Ontario’s -
- West System and Manitoba. About 1100 km : fired generation.

; of new high voltage transmission line will be :

required in Ontario.

2.2 Major Supply Cases

Figure 2-1 provides a summary of five different

mixes of generation options. These combinations

of major supply options, called Cases, were
selected from dozens of Cases formulated to
illustrate alternatives or pursue improvements. :

Siting assumptions and associated trans- : (IGCC) units.

mission assumptions for each Case are discussed:

in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.

Major Supply Terminology

The following terminology is used to describe

options within the Cases:
CSC refers to conventional steam cycle coal-

CANDU refers to nuclear generating stations |
: (Canadian Deuterium Uranium).

_ to meet peaking requirements. To protect

against the possibility of higher than forecast

provision is made to develop some of these :

CTUs, in phases, into combined cycle (CC)

or integrated gasification combined cycle
~A1-4, CANDUB5-8, CANDUC 9-10.
These provisions make it necessary to make : 7
the following distinctions:

- conversion;

- CTU/CC - CTUs convertible to CCs;

Figure 2—1 Alternative Cases — Energy Production by Source

Median Load Forecast

Case 24
Case 26

Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

Hydro Nuclear Coal Gas

Oil NUG Purchase

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
rear)

_ CTU/IGCC - CTUs convertible to CC and ~
: IGCC units.

Each Case requires differing numbers of 3

- generating units and stations. It is necessary |
_ at times to describe the number of stations

required and the number, timing and capacity 7

- of the generating units at any station.
_ CTUs (Combustion Turbine Units) are used -

This will be done as follows: |
¢ Letters indicate the order in which stations |

_ of a particular option are employed, i.e., |

: fuel prices or higher CTU capacity factors, CANDU A is the first station, CANDU B is :

the second station.

' © The units in stations of a particular option |

are numbered consecutively, i.e., CANDU :

¢ For fossil options, the symbol Ce is intro- |

duced before the unit numbers. Ce means |
: CTU/G -a general term covering all CTUs; Capacity Equivalent, i.e., CTU/NC A Ce 1
: CTU/NC - CTUs with no provision for :
150 MW units, or different size units equivalent :

to 600 MW capacity.

- 4 is the first CTU/NC station, with four -

The five Cases have varying mixes of fossil :

and nuclear generation:
: ¢ Case 15 - mixed reliance on nuclear and :
fossil generation;
: * Case 26 - heaviest reliance on fossil gen- :
: eration;
* Case 23-heaviest reliance on nuclear gen-
eration;

2 * Case 24 - between 15 and 26;
: ¢ Case 22-between 15 and 23.

: Case 15
7 In this Case, about two-thirds of new capacity :
under each load forecast condition consists :
: of purchases and base load nuclear gener- :
: ation, the remaining one-third is peaking |
7 fossil generation. Table 2-1 summarizes :

: capacity additions.

Figure 2-2 illustrates the approximate timing :
_ of major supply additions under the three |

: load forecast paths.

Under the median load forecast, base load 2
: is supplied by nuclear generation, with in- :
: service dates set by cost and environmental :
- considerations. The intermediate requirement
: is met by existing fossil stations, retrofitted :
: as necessary, to meet environmental require-
: ments. The remaining peaking requirement :
: is met with gas-fuelled CTUs, convertible to :
—CCs or IGCCs. In total, by 2014, this Case |
2 requires ten CANDU units at three stations,
six CTU/CCsat one station and 26 CTU/IGCCs |

- at three stations.

Under the upper forecast, options are
: advanced in the early years to the extent per- :
: mitted by lead times. In later years, in-service :
: dates are set by cost and environmental con- :
: siderations. CTU/NCs at existing stations are
: used to reduce capacity shortfalls in the mid
: 1990s. These are followed by CTU/IGCCs on :
: new sites starting in the late 1990s. More base :
: load nuclear is added in later years to restore :
an appropriate mix of generation. In total, :
: by 2014, this Case requires 14 CANDU units :
: at four stations, ten CTU/NCs at three stations, :
: 12 CTU/CCs at two stations, and 16 CTU/IGCCs :

' at two stations.

Under the lower forecast, requirements |
: are met with fewer and later nuclear units
: and CTUs, whose in-service dates are set by :
: cost and environmental considerations. The :
: exception to delayed in-service dates is the :
: Manitoba Purchase, for which contract com- :
: mitments have been made. This Case requires, :
: by 2014, six CANDU units at two stations, six :
- CTU/CCsat one station, and 14 CTU/IGCCs |

' at two stations.

Table2—1 Major Supply Additions by 2014
Case 15
Capacity (GW)
Lower Median Upper ©
Major Supply Option Forecast Forecast Forecast
Utility Purchase 1.0 1.0 1.0
CANDU 03° 8.8 12.3
CTU/NC 0 0 1.7
CTU/CC 1.0 1.0 20 4
CTU/IGCC 23 44 a |
Total 9.6 15.2 19.7
Case 26 : gas fired CTUs convertible to CCs or IGCCs.

In this Case, about half of the new base load

capacity under each load forecast condition

consists of purchases and CSC coal. Peaking
requirements are met by CTU/Gs. The pro- :
portion of peaking generation is larger than :
in Case 15, because the CSC coal station is :
smaller than a nuclear station and more CTUs

are installed to compensate. Table 2-2 sum- :

marizes capacity additions by 2014.

An alternative to Case 26 was developed

using IGCC stations rather than CSC coal stations :
: as base load fossil generation. The results of :
the two Cases are similar, except for solid waste
and technical soundness. IGCC features lower
solid waste. CSC is more technically proven.

The approximate timing of capacity addi- :
tions over the planning period is shown in :
: CTUs. The Manitoba Purchase is not delayed,

- because contract commitments have been made. |

Figure 2-3.
Under the median forecast, base load

requirement is met with CSC coal generation.

The intermediate requirement is met by existing
fossil stations, retrofitted with emission controls,
- to meet environmental requirements. The -

- remaining peaking requirement is met with -

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-3

This Case requires, by 2014, ten CSC Coal :
' units at three stations, six CTU/CCs at one |

station, and 34 CTU/IGCCs at three stations. :

Under the upper forecast, options are
advanced in the early years, to the extent per-
mitted by lead times; in later years they are ;
advanced to the extent permitted by cost. CTUs :

at new stations are advanced more than CSC |

: Coal units, because of their shorter lead times.

- The remaining requirement is met with very :

short lead time CTU/NCs on existing stations. :
This Case requires, by 2014, 14 CSC coal units :
at four stations, eight CTU/NGs at two stations,
12 CTU/CCs at two stations, and 30 CTU/IGCCs |
at three stations.

Under the lower forecast, requirements are
met with fewer and later CSC coal units and

- This Case requires, by 2014, six CSC coal units :

at two stations, six CTU/CCs at one station,
and 18 CTU/IGCCs at two stations. :

Lower
Major Supply Option Forecast
Utility Purchase 1.0
CSC - Coal 4.5
CTU/NC. ~ 0
CTU/CC 1.0
CTU/IGCC 3.0
Total 9.5

Capacity (GW)
Median Upper
Forecast Forecast
1.0 1.0
7.4 10.4
0 1.4
1.0 2.0
Ort 5.0
15:1; 19.8

Lower
Major Supply Option Forecast
Utility Purchase 1.0
CANDU 8.8
CTU/NC : 0
CTU/CC 0
CTU/IGCC 0.3
Total 10.1

Capacity (GW)

Median Upper
Forecast Forecast
1.0 1.0

14.1 1539

O= 1.3

0 0

0 13

15.1 1925

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-4

| Case 23

Table 2—2 Major Supply Additions by 2014 :
Case 26

~ and base load nuclear generation. The remaining |

In this Case, more than 85% of new capacity |

under each load forecast consists of purchases

requirementis met with peaking fossil generation :
: provided by existing fossil stations. Some fossil :
: peaking generation is added, mostly under :
: the upper load forecast. Table 2-3 summarizes :
capacity additions by 2014. :

The approximate timing of capacity addi- |

- tions over the planning period is shown in °

: Figure 2-4.

Under the median load forecast, nuclear :

generation eliminates the need for new peaking :
: fossil and minimizes the use of existing fossil
: generation. In-service dates of nuclear units :
: are scheduled to meet all base load requirements 2
: and some intermediate requirements. Existing :
: fossil generation moves toward the peaking
2 role and no new peaking generation is required. :
: In total, by 2014, 16 CANDU units at four :

: stations are required.

Table 2—3 Major Supply Additions by 2014
Case 23

- and atanewstation. Additional nuclear units |

Under the upper load forecast, CTUs are
added in the early years, both at existing stations

: are added in later years. This Case requires, ©
- by 2014, 18 CANDU units at five stations, eight
- CTU/NCsat two stations, and eight CTU/IGCCs |

: at one station.

Under the lower load forecast, fewer and :

: later nuclear units are required. This Case
: requires, by 2014, ten CANDU units at three |
_ stations, and two CTU/IGCCs at one station. -

Case 24 :
: This Case is between Case 15 and the Case :
26. All peaking, all intermediate and part of :
: the base load requirements are met by fossil

: generation,

Under the median load forecast, base load

: requirements are met, in turn, by CANDU A, |

a .
<Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis>
|

Figure 2-2. New Major Supply Case 15

24 ]
Options
© Manitoba Purchase
22
pe aa
ae «Fossil :
CANDU D Forecast a
13-14 paar) :¢
as CTU/IGCC B once :
Ce 13-16 PP
ct Median
Lower

14 CANDU C 9-10

CTU/IGCC C Ce 25-26

10
CANDU B 5-6

~ CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-14
CTU/IGCC A Ce 7-12

CTU/NC C
Ce 9-10

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
January of Year

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-5

Figure 2-3 New Major Supply Case 26

Options
9% Manitoba Purchase

"~~ Nuclear
a Fossil

CSc D
Ce 13-14

Forecast

Upper

Median

1990 1995 2000 2005
January of Year

Lower

— CSCC Ce 9-10

CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-18
= CTU/IGCC A Ce 7-12

2010 2014

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-6

(SCA, and CANDU B. Existing and new fossil

M Table 2-4 Major Supply Additions by 2014 :
| Case 24

: Coal units at one station, six CANDU units |

- generation meet intermediate and peak require-

: ments. This Case requires, by 2014, four CSC

: at two stations, six CTU/CCs at one station, :
and 30 CTU/IGCCsat three stations by 2014.
: Under the upper load forecast, the base :
: load requirements are met, in turn, by CANDU 2
2 A, CSC A, CANDU B, and two units in CANDU :
: C. Peaking requirements, by 2014, are met :
: by eight CTU/NGs at two stations, ten
~ CTU/CCsat two stations and 24 CTU/IGCCs |

: at three stations.

: Under the lower load forecast, base load :
: requirements are met by CANDU A followed :
: by two units in CSC A. Peaking requirements,
: by 2014, are met by six CTU/CCs at one station :

: and 14 CTU/IGCCs at two stations.

An alternative variation of Case 24 was
- analyzed. It featured a CSC coal station as :
the first base load station. The variant with

: a CANDU station first is favoured because :

: Table 2—5 Major Supply Additions by 2014 :
Case 22 .

: 5

: it maintains CANDU capability in Canada.
Table 2-4 summarizes capacity additions
- by the end of 2014.

The approximate timing of capacity addi- :

- tions over the planning period is shown in :

: Figure 2-5.

; Case 22

: This Case has a mix of options that fall between :

: the mixes in Case 15 and Case 23.

Under the median load forecast, nuclear :
: units are scheduled to reduce the need for
: new fossil generation until later in the period. :
- This Case requires, by 2014, 12 CANDU units :
- at three stations, six CTU/CCsat one station, :
: and 16 CTU/IGCCs at two stations.Under the :

- upper load forecast, requirements are met |

initially by CTU/NCs on existing sites, and

then by CTU/IGCCs. Nuclear units provide -

Lower
Major Supply Option Forecast
Utility Purchase 1.0
CSC — Coal ile)
CANDU 3.5
CTU/NC 0
CTU/CC 1.0
CTU/IGCC 2.4
Total 9.4

Capacity (GW)
Median

Forecast
1.0

3.0

5.3

1.0

5.0

15.3

Upper
Forecast
1.0

3.0

8.8

les

Ley

4.0

19.8

Lower
Major Supply Option Forecast
Utility Purchase : 1.0
CANDU 7.0
CTU/NC 0
CTU/CC 0
CTU/IGCC es
Total 37

Capacity (GW)

Median

Forecast

1.0
10.6
0
1.0
2.7
15.3

Upper
Forecast
1.0

dg 322

Ue:

1.7

2.7

19.9

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-7,

: 30

Figure 2-4 New Major Supply Case 23

Options

©) Manitoba Purchase
»— > Nuclear

MM Fossil

20
CANDUE Forecast
11-18 ese
18 Upper
16 edian
Lower
14
12
10
<— CANDUC 9-10
8 << (TUIGCCA
Ce 1-2
6
4
2
0 2
1990 1995. 2000 2005 2010 2014
January of Year

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-8

—)

<Alternative Demand/Supply Plans Environmental Analysis> -

Figure 2-5 New Major Supply Case 24

Options

(8 Manitoba Purchase
Nuclear

S288 Fossil

Forecast
CANDUC 9-10 — ae

CTU/IGCC C Ce 21-24

CTU/IGCC C Ce 19-20 : 15

<— (SCA Ce 1-2

¢— CTU/IGCCB Ce 13-14
S CTUIGCCA Ce7-12

6
20
4 CTU/IGCC A Ce 9-12
2
CTU/NC A Ce 1-4
0
25
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
January of Year
35
40

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-9

or:

B35

base load generation as lead time permits.
This Case requires, by 2014, 15 CANDU units :
at four stations, eight CTU/NGs at two sta-
tions, ten CTU/CCs at two stations, and
- 16 CTU/IGCCs at two stations. 3
For lower load forecast, eight CANDU units :
at two stations and ten CTU/IGCCs at one ~
7 station are required by 2014.

Table 2-5 summarizes total capacity additions
by 2014.
| The approximate timing of capacity addi-
: tions over the planning period is shown in
Figure 2-6.

2.3 Candidate Sites
Candidate sites are known sites that are being
considered for future fossil and nuclear gen-
erating facilities in the major supply Cases. :
Candidate sites are used to illustrate that :
it is technically and economically fea-
sible to locate the selected options within :
the province. Site locations are shown in :
Figure 2-7, as are the locations of proposed -
hydraulic developments. Subsequent envi- :
_ ronmental assessments will assure that pro-
jects are located in an environmentally
acceptable manner, and with opportunities
for community input. :

Candidate Sites for Nuclear Option
: The following sites can accommodate a :
_ 4x 881 MW CANDU station:

¢ Darlington (near Bowmanville)
¢ Wesleyville (near Port Hope)

and Espanola)

¢ Lennox (near Bath)

¢ North Channel Area (between Bruce Mines |

and Espanola)
¢ Wesleyville (near Port Hope)

Existing fossil generating station sites (Keith,
Lakeview, and Lambton) could be used for

- new stations after the existing stations are
: decommissioned. Some sites, such as Hearn
and Keith, cannot accommodate IGCC or larger
stations. These sites, however, are suitable for
the addition of combustion turbine units, which
can be converted to combined cycle generation. : into IGCCs, CTUs convertible to CC units, and
- If redeveloped, Keith could possibly accom-
modate a small IGCC station. :

Candidate Sites for CTU and CC Options

To meet the upper load forecast, Hydro requires -
_ options with very short construction lead times

(2 to 5 years), such as combustion turbine

units on operating station sites. Existing oper-
ating stations —- Lakeview, Lambton, Lennox
: A and Nanticoke - are possible sites. 2
_ Hearnand Keith are currently mothballed :
and do not have trained maintenance and
operating staff on site. In short lead-time sit-
uations, CTUs could be installed at these sites. :
However, these two stations are better suited : 15, 22, 24 and 26; and three in Case 23.
: for the longer lead time combined cycle stations.
- This better site utilization may be precluded :
by the installation of non-convertible CTUs. :
The following sites are potentially suitable
for CTUs:

_ © Hearn (Toronto) - CTU/CC (Phase 1)

- © Keith (Windsor) - CTU/IGCC (Phase 1)
¢ Bruce (between Kincardine and Port Elgin) e Lambton (Sarnia) - CTUs
¢ North Channel Area (between Bruce Mines : ¢ Nanticoke (Port Dover) - CTUs
_ ¢ Lennox GSA (Bath) - CTUs

: ° Lakeview (Mississauga) - CTUs
_ Candidate Sites for CSC and IGCC Options —

The following sites can accommodate at least

one CSC or IGCC station:

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-10

-: Site Categories and Associated Sites

The location of any new sites is not specified

: at this time in any of the alternate plans. Site :
selection studies will be required to identify :
and select any new sites. The set of illustrative ;

sites for each case represents a feasible choice

and meets the system requirement for a geo- |

graphic balance between electricity demand :

and supply.
In general, the Cases require sites for CANDU |
stations, CSC coal stations, CTUs convertible

CTU/NGs without further development options.
Table 2-6 shows howillustrative sites could |

- be used in each Case under all three load forecasts.
An alternative siting sequence was also studied.

The number of sites required varies between |
Cases and between load forecasts (Table 5-3).

- For the upper load forecast, eight to eleven sites

would be used; for the median forecast, four to
seven: for the lower forecast, three to five.

To meet base load requirements, all Cases :
require new sites to be identified in locations :
that maintain geographical balance between :
demand and generation. For the median fore- :
cast, two sites need to be identified in Cases

2.4 Transmission Requirements
Since the siting of generating stations hasan —

impact on the transmission system, transmission

: considerations are included in this analysis.
The transmission required to incorporate a :
: new Ontario Hydro generating station will
: include radial transmission necessary to connect
the site to the existing and planned Bulk
: Electricity System (BES). It may also include
inter-area transmission necessary to maintain :

: an integrated BES.

‘

Table 2—6 Illustrative siting and timing of options

Load

Forecast

Site Condition
Lower
Median
Upper

Darlington B

Lower
Median
Upper

Hearn

Keith Lower
Median
Upper
Lower
Median
Upper

Lakeview

Lower
Median
Upper

Lambton

Lower
Median
Upper

Lennox A

Lower
Median
Upper

Lennox B

Lower
Median
Upper

Nanticoke

Lower
Median
Upper

New Site 1

New Site 2 Lower
Median

Upper

Case 23
Highest Nuclear
In-
Option Service
Candu A 1999
CanduA 1999

CanduA 1999

CTU/IGCC A 2012

CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/NC B 1994
CANDU C 2012
CANDUC 2009
CANDU C 2007

CANDU D 2010
CANDU D 2008

Case 22
Higher Nuclear
In-
Option Service
CanduA 2007
CanduA 2001

CanduA 2001

CTU/CCA 2008
CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CCA 2002

CTU/IGCC A 2012
CTU/IGCC B 2012
CTU/IGCC B 2012

CTU/NCA 1993

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDUC 2010
CANDUC 2008

CANDU D 2011

Case 15
Balanced

In-

Option Service

CanduA 2009

CanduA 2003 -

CanduA 2002
CTU/CCA 2008
CTU/CC A 2001
CTU/CC B 2002

CTU/CC A 2001
CTU/IGCC B 2012
CTU/IGCC B 2009
CTU/IGCC B 2012
CTU/IGCC C 2012

CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/NC C 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDU C 2012
CANDU C 2008

CANDU D 2012

Case 24

Higher fossil
In-
Option Service
CanduA 2009
CanduA 2003
Candu A 2002
CTU/CC A 2008
CTU/CC A 2001

CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CCA 2002
CTUIGCCB —-2012
CTU/IGCCB —-2008
CTU/IGCCC —-2006

CTU/IGCC C 2010
CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/IGCC B 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CANDU B 2012

CANDUB 2008

CANDU C 2012

Case 26
Highest fossil
In-

Option Service

CTU/CC A 2008
CTU/CC A 2001
CTU/CC B 2003

CTU/CC A 2002
CTU/IGCC B 2012
CTU/IGCC B 2008
CTU/IGCC C 2007

CTU/IGCC C 2010
CTU/NC A 1993

CTU/IGCC B 2001

CTU/NC B 1994

CSC COAL C 2012

CSC COAL C 2008

CSC COAL D 2012

Sag

: 20

5 385

£35

> 40

$03":

40:

Table 2-6

Load
Forecast

Condition

Site
New Site 3

Lower
Median
Upper
Lower
Median
Upper

North Channel

Lower
Median
Upper

Wesleyville A

Lower
Median
Upper

Wesleyville B

Illustrative siting and timing of options (continued)

Case 23

Highest Nuclear

In-

Option Service
CANDUE 2012
CANDU B 2010
CANDU B 2002
CANDU B 2002

CTU/IGCC A 1997

‘Case 22
Higher Nuclear
In-
Option Service
CANDU B 2010
CANDU B 2006
CANDU B 2005
CTU/IGCC A 2009
CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 15

Balanced
In-
Option Service
CANDUB 2012
CANDU B 2009
CANDUB 2007
CTU/IGCC A 2009
CTUIGCCA —-2002
CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 24

Higher fossil
In-
Option Service
CSC COALA 2012
CSC COAL A 2009
CSC COALA 2007
CTU/IGCC A 2009
CTU/IGCC A 2002
CTU/IGCC A 1997

Case 26
Highest fossil
In-

Option Service

CSC COAL B 2012
CSC COAL B 2009
CSC COAL B 2007
CTU/IGCC A 2009
CTU/IGCC A 2002
CTU/IGCC A 1997
CSC COALA 2009
CSC COALA 2003
CSC COALA 2002

2-12

Figure 2-6 New Major Supply Case 22

Options
(2 Manitoba Purchase

CTU/IGCC B
Ce 13-16

CTU/CC B
Ce5-6

1990

1995

2000 2005
January of Year

2010

Ga Nuclear
2 Fossil

Forecast
al

Upper

Median

Lower

CTU/IGCC B Ce 13-16

<— CTU/IGCC A Ce 1-10

2014

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-18

> 35

35:

Table 2—7 Major Radial Transmission Requirements for Incorporation of Major Supply

1. Darlington B Incorporation
Bowmanville SS x Cherrywood TS
* build a 3rd 2—cct 500 kV line, approximately 46 km, on an existing approved right-of-way

2. North Channel Site Incorporation

North Channel GS x Mississagi TS

° build two 1—cct 500 kV lines, approximately 50 km, ona new right-of-way
North Channel GS x Sudbury Area

* build two new 1 —cct 500 kV lines, approximately 225 km, on a new right-of-way

3.Southwestern Ontario Site Incorporation
New GS x Existing 500 kV Transformer Station in SWO
* build two 2 —cct 500 kV lines, up to 100 km long, on a new right-of-way

4. Manitoba Purchase
Manitoba Border x Sault Ste. Marie area

¢ build one 1—cct 500 kV line, approximately 1,100 km, on a new right-of-way

Note:This covers only the facilities required in Ontario. New 500 kV stations will be established at
Dryden, Lakehead and midway between Lakehead and Mississagi stations. The proposed facilities
will displace indefinitely the following planned transmission projects in Northern Ontario:

° Birch x Marmion Lake

e Marmion Lake x Dryden

¢ Northern Ontario Interconnection Stages land Il

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-14

Figure 2-7 Candidate Sites Used in Alternate Plans

Legend
Ontario Hydro Sites
Allan Rapids @
Missinaibi Sand Rapids: Nuclear
CBee Blacksmith Rapids: Fossil

Little Jackfish Nine Mile Rapids

‘ == Hydraulic
Otter Rapids

(including new
Abitibi Canyon and redevelopments)
; @ Undeveloped
Thermal Sites
Other Sites

A Undeveloped
Thermal Sites

Lake
Nipigon

Cypress Falls

Mattagami
River

Montreal
River :

Ragged Chute

Mississagi
River

Patten Post
North Channel

- me

_¢ Big Chute
Severn

River
Lennox

Wesleyville

Pickering EC

Hearn

Lakeview

G Sir Adam Beck
Niagara
Sey

Lake Gibson a
; River

WilLambton Nanticoke

3.0. Keith

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-15

30:

35h

40:

: The need for radial transmission 1s driven
solely by the choice of site and its proximity :
| to a suitable existing or planned transmission 2
stations in the integrated system. The need :
: for inter-area transmission can be driven by
: the choice of site, but is also influenced by
many other factors such as security and reliability :
of load supply, geographic mismatch of load :
and generation, and operational flexibility
: and economics. 7
Toillustrate the differences between radial
: and inter-area transmission, examples of the :
facilities required to incorporate a generating
station at a new site are given below:

North Channel Area (4 x 881 MW CANDU)
¢ The radial transmission required is two :
500 kV single circuit lines (50 km) from the :
new site to the existing Mississagi Transformer :
: Station (near Sault Ste. Marie) on a newright- :
of-way and, two 500 kV single circuit lines
: (225 km) from the new site to the existing
Hanmer Transformer Station at Sudbury on

| a new right-of-way.

¢ To accommodate the increased power flows |

on the existing bulk transmission system, due
to the new station and the Manitoba Purchase,

new hydraulic developments and the purchase
of non-utility generation in northern Ontario, :
Hydro would require a new 500 kV single circuit ¢ Manitoba Purchase (1,100 km)
line (210 km) from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury
on existing right-of-way and two new 500 kV 2
single circuit lines (400 km) from Sudbury :
- to Toronto on a new right-of-way. :
The transmission approvals requested in :
this application are for the requirements and
: rationale for radial transmission. Specific routes
for this radial transmission will be assessed :
as part of the project specific environmental :
: assessment for each generation development. :
As a result, this environmental analysis only :
addresses the radial transmission requirements :
for supply options at the assumed reference
sites given in Section 2.3 and the transmission :
requirements for the Manitoba Purchase. Inter-
area transmission will be dealt with in a separate :

planning and approval process.

<Description of Alternative Plans - Chapter Two>
2-16

The four options that require significant |

_ radial transmission are:
© Darlington B (46 km)

¢ North Channel Site (550 km)
¢ Southwestern Ontario Site (200 km)

The requirements are described in :
Table 2-7 . The distances given above in :
brackets are the approximate lengths of new :
transmission line involved. As indicated in
Table 2-7, it is proposed that some of these 7

lines be located on multi-line rights-of-way. :

The locations of the new rights-of-way have 2
not been identified at this time. Route se- :
lection studies are required to identify and
select specific routes. :

The remaining sites require relatively short 7
lengths of new radial transmission line on :
existing rights-of-way (i.e. generally less than :
2 km), or no new radial transmission at all. :

The amount of radial transmission required

varies little among Cases. The main difference
. for the same load forecast is in the order and :
timing of additions to the Bulk Transmission :
System. In some Cases, particularly with lower :
load growth, there are differences of up to
350 km in the total length of transmission
: requirements. The amount of transmission :

: required increases with load.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS PROCESS

To compare alternative demand/supply plans, Hydro examined both

natural and social characteristics of the “environment.”

Social considerations include socio-economic effects and broad social

considerations (e.g., equity issues).

- 3.1 General Assumptions
: © The evaluation focuses on environmental

: changes associated with the median load fore- |
: cast. Low load forecast and upper load forecast
are examined as sensitivity conditions in

: Section 5.3.

7 ¢ Plan comparisons are based on an evaluation :
of environmental effects associated with :
demand management as well as all energy :
: supply options over the study period, 3
2 3.2 Evaluation Method

1989-2014. Transmission considerations are

- limited to the radial transmission required

- to incorporate major new generation.

: ¢ Full fuel cycle effects are considered. Some |

effects (eg., from coal mining) will occur outside

- Ontario. Where possible, these will be noted, -

: uation. Other impacts during the fuel cycle (e.g.,

_ from uranium mining) could occur within Ontario

2 outside Ontario, or are beyond Hydro’s direct :
: control, they will be regulated to meet the appro- :
: priate environmental standards and legislation. :
: ¢ Only effects associated with normal, routine

- operation are assessed. Provision to handle |

- emergency or accident conditions will be made

: in the detailed design for each plant/facility :

- and appropriate contingency planning will |

: be developed.

: @ Allnew generation and transmission projects :
: will require review and approval under the Ontario
Environmental Assessment Act. Siting and routing :
considerations as well as site-specific effects
and mitigation will be addressed in individual
project environmental assessments. :
More specific assumptions pertaining to

the natural and social environmental analyses

are detailed in Appendix A.

- The evaluation of environmental effects was :
influenced by: 7
© the approaches used to prepare the envi-
7 ronmental analyses of the representative plans :
"of the Demand/Supply Planning Strategy :
_ but they are not dealt with in detail in this eval- : (Ontario Hydro, 1989); |
e review of approaches used in similar planning :
studies (BC Hydro,1989; Michigan Dept. 2
: but are not directly within the control of Ontario : Commerce, 1987; Northwest Power Planning :
: Hydro. Itis assumed that where activities occur : Council, 1989); and

* experience with the environmental assessment

planning process.

Siting of generation and transmission facil-
ities is subject to environmental assessment. :
7 Although there are differences between a F
| general demand/supply plan and an assess- 7
ment for a specific project, many of the same :

, principles apply.

3-1

P25

20:

35:

Figure 3-1 Demand/Supply Plans

Demand/Supply
Options Study

Demand/Supply
Planning Strategy

Alternative
Demand/Supply Plans

Environmental Analysis

_ Process ~

¢ Demand Management
¢ Non-utility Generation
-e Hydraulic Generation

“Define Evaluation Criteria

e Purchases : Natural Environment ~

e Station Rehabilitation Social Environment

* Major Supply Cases _ eldentify Environmental
Effects/Mitigation =

*Focus on Plan Differences
* Discuss Environmental Advantages
__ and Disadvantages of Alternative Plans

a Other Evaluations

Demand/Supply Plan

Government and
Public Review

3=2

The evaluation process includes the |

following steps:
: ¢ Develop a set of natural and social envi- 7
: ronmental criteria for both the generation :
and transmission components of the plans. :
: Test the criteria for appropriateness, successful :
use elsewhere, measurability, etc. :
* Evaluate the environmental implications :
: of the alternative plans, using the criteria. 7
: * Consider mitigation/compensation to offset
the potential environmental effects of the plans. :
¢ Determine the environmental advantages :
and disadvantages of the alternative plans, :
: and identify residual effects; :
: ¢ Identify and comment on constraints and
concerns (ie., sensitivity considerations) outside :
Ontario Hydro’s control, such as regulations, 7
which might change these results. 7
* Document the findings and the evaluation

- process.

Figure 3-1 shows environmental analysis :

- process in relation to the overall planning :

: process.

' 3.3 Evaluation Criteria and Background |
: Evaluation criteria were developed consistent
: with the environment goal of the Corporate :
Strategy. It states that “... Ontario Hydro will
develop and manage its activities and facilities :
in sucha way as to sustain the environmental :
base”. Furthermore, the environmental direc- :
: tive in the 1989 President’s Initiatives states
that environmental concerns and their solu- 2
: tions will be integrated into Hydro’s planning :
and decision-making processes. These envi- :
: ronmental concerns will consider preventive
measures, not just mitigative measures. The
: general strategic principles in the :
: Demand/Supply Planning Strategy also state, 7
“Ontario Hydro will take a leadership role :

- in protecting the environment and will encour-

age the social benefits associated with its

: activities.”

Evaluation criteria were selected that are
: consistent with the concept of sustainable devel- :
: opment - that is, that the needs of present :
: generations (for electricity or any other mate- :
: rials) must be met without compromising the |
ability of future generations to meet their own :

- needs. This concept was first introduced by |

- Commission on Environmentand Development :
- (UNEP,1987). It recognizes that economic :
' growth is necessary, but stresses that it must :

- be undertaken in harmony with sound envi- :

- ronmental objectives.

The Brundtland Commission recommends :
- that the following key elements must be rec-

onciled to achieve sustainability in the energy

- sector:

: * Sufficient growth of energy supplies to meet :

- human needs;

- sures, such that waste of primary resources :

- ig minimized;

- inherent in energy sources; and

~ © Protection of the biosphere and prevention |

: of more localized forms of pollution.

The Brundtland Commission draws the :

- following general conclusions:

_ © Allenergy sources have environmental con- |

~ sequences, some of which are not dealt with .

: adequately.

_ © Choosing an energy strategy inevitably means

- choosing an environmental strategy,

_ © Less energy means fewer environmental prob-

~ lems; low energy futures are therefore more .

: beneficial than high energy futures.

Since all of these environmental objectives :

- are notcomplementary, tradeoffs must be made. :

3.3.1 Natural Environmental Criteria

The selection of the natural environment criteria

was based, in part, on the:

* natural environment evaluation of the rep- :
resentative plans used in developing the
Demand/Supply Planning Strategy undertaken :
2 the United Nations - sponsored Brundtland : in 1986 (Ontario Hydro 1986a);
ie experience in identifying and assessing the

environmental impacts of site-specific gen- :

eration and transmission facilities; and

¢ knowledge of environmental assessment.

The selection of criteria was also tempered :
by the need to develop, where possible, quan- :
titative measures of environmental effects for :
- comparison purposes. Since site-specific infor- 2
mation was not available, estimates were based :
2 on current construction and operation practices, :
and emissions and other environmental effects
for typical generation and transmission facilities. 2
: Detailed assessment of site-specific environ- :
~ mental effects will be carried out for individual :
" projects. |
The natural environmental criteria were :
: selected and grouped into two broad categories :
: to respond to sustainable development prin- :
ciples relating to resource use and the pro- :
duction of emissions, effluents and wastes. :
ae Sik natural environmental criteria were :
selected for this analysis of the plans. They :
: are stated as follows: :

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three>
3-3

1. Resource Use

¢ Non-Renewable Resources

This criterion will consider the extent to which :
- renewable and non-renewable resources are
- used in the alternative plans. The use of plen-
- tiful, renewable and indigenous resources is
preferred and is consistent with the concept
of sustainable development, while use of non- :
: renewable resources is not. The use of non-
renewable resources, such as fuels (eg., coal,
oil, natural gas and uranium) and limestone :
- required for FGD to scrub SO, from coal plant
flue gases, will be considered. The use of fuel
2 will be directly determined by the amount of :
resource required to produce a unit of electrical
energy. Resource per TWh requirements vary
significantly among fuels, with uranium requir- 2

ing the least resource commitment per unit |

of energy produced.

¢ Land Use

Estimates will be made of the total land area
requirements for coal and uranium mining,
new generation sites, including transmission :
lines, as well as land requirement for waste :
2 storage/ disposal and flooding for reservoirs.
Opportunities to reduce future land area

requirements and/or offset potential losses

will be considered.

This criterion will also consider the extent :
to which existing facilities are rehabilitated
(ie., to make the most of existing facilities) ;
_ river basin development is undertaken for :
: future hydraulic stations; and existing rights-
, of-way are used for transmission facilities. 2
: These measures serve to optimize use of exist- :
, ing facilities and thereby reduce long-term :

- land use.

> 30

> 40

bales

30:

35:

¢ Water Use
Estimates will be made and compared for the
amount of water required for fuel mining and
processing, and for cooling water use, including :
evaporative losses. Cooling water flow rates
are assumed to reflect the potential for entrain-
ment/impingement of fish and other aquatic
organisms. Evaporative losses, although typically :
low (ie., less than one percent of cooling water :
flows), provide a measure of consumptive water :
use. Consumptive water use in the Great Lakes :

: is becoming an issue.
: 2. Emissions /Effluents /Wastes

¢ Atmospheric Emissions
Typical levels of sulphur dioxide (SOs), nitrogen
oxide (NOx as NOs), total acid gas (SO, +
NOx), carbon dioxide (CO.), trace elements, :
particulates and radionuclide emissions will :
be estimated and compared for all plans.
Ontario Hydro’s total acid gas emissions |
are regulated on a system-wide basis. These
limits cannot be exceeded, regardless of the
demand for electricity or the mix of generation
options available. Acid gas limits step downward
: over the study period, reaching their lowest 7
: level in 1994 at 215 gigagrams annually (Gg/a) :
2 (for total acid gas) and 175 Gg/a (for SOg). :
No specific limit presently exists for NOx emis- 2
sions, although a recent international NOx :
Protocol, calling for a freeze of NOx emissions
to 1987 levels by 1994, has been endorsed by
: the Canadian government. Ontario Hydro’s :

NOx emissions in 1987 were 62 Gg.

CO, emissions are not currently regulated. :
Due to the growing concern over the greenhouse :
effect and associated global warming, there
: have been recent initiatives aimed at reducing
: CO, emissions. A number of regulatory groups
have proposed a 20% reduction in CO, emissions

: by 2005, using 1988 as the base year. A federal-
: provincial task group is looking at the imphi- :
cations of achieving a 20% reduction target. 2
The ability of alternative plans to meet this
illustrative target will be addressed in this analysis.

Trace element emissions are small in com-

parison to SOs, NOx and CO, emissions. These |

emissions are currently regulated at the local

air quality level. Trace elements considered :

in this evaluation are listed in Appendix A.

Radionuclide emissions limits are regulated :
: on a site-specific basis and must not exceed
2 Derived Emission Limits (DELs) set by the
Atomic Energy Control Board. Hydro routinely
limits these emissions to 1% of the DEL on :

: an average annual basis. Radionuclides con-

sidered in this analysis include tritium, noble

gases, lodine 131 (1,3;), and radioactive par- :
ticulates. Total radionuclide emissions will
be estimated for the plan period. Estimates :
2 of DELs will also be used to assess the ability
- of each plan to meet regulatory limits on an :

annual basis.

Noise emissions will also be considered,
but no quantitative estimates will be provided,

since levels are highly site dependent.
Total emissions and margins below existing

and proposed regulations will be assessed and

compared.

¢ Aquatic Effluents

Estimates will be made of aquatic effluents (i.e.,
: 3.3.2 Social Environmental Criteria

thermal, trace elements, radionuclide) from

mining activities and generating stations and 2
associated facilities (e.g., waste management).

Water effluents are currently regulated to :
meet prescribed water quality objectives.
Radionuclide effluents are regulated by the :
AECB, Radionuclide effluents measured include

tritium and gross beta.

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three>
3-4

Recent provincial initiatives under the :
Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement :
(MISA) are stressing “virtual elimination” of
toxic discharges to Ontario waterbodies.
Discharge limits under MISA are being prepared :
for specific application to Ontario Hydro. :
Complementary to this provincial program :

- isan evolving federal policy aimed at attaining :

“zero discharge” for future industrial users |

: in the Great Lakes basin. Minimization of aquatic

effluents will be an important consideration |
in assessing the acceptability of future generation

facilities.

¢ Solid Waste Production
Estimates will be made of the quantities of :

- waste produced throughout the project life :

cycle (i.e., mining to waste disposal). These
wastes include uranium and coal mining wastes, :
ash, FGD wastes, and radioactive wastes (ie., :
low level wastes and used fuel). :

Reducing the waste produced in the province :

via active 3R programs (ie., reduce, reuse, ;

recycle) isa fundamental part of the Ontario |
government's environmental initiatives. A target

: of a50% reduction in solid waste production -
: by 2000 has been recently proposed by the |

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

: Minimization of waste production will be an |
- important consideration in assessing future

: plan acceptability.

For the purposes of this study, “community” :
is broadly defined to include the local or regional :
area potentially affected by generation and :
transmission projects, as well as the population :
of the province. Since only certain social effects :
can be fully assessed prior to a site selection 7

- and approval, much of the discussion is qual- -
- itative and descriptive rather than quantitative. :

: Detailed community impact studies will be 2
: undertaken, as part of project Environmental
: Assessments, to address, mitigate and com-
: pensate for social effects. Unlike many effects :
: on the natural environment, province-wide :
: standards do not exist to regulate social effects.

The selection of social criteria for this eval- :

- uation was influenced by:

: ¢ the 1987 social and economic evaluation
_ of representative plans (Ontario Hydro,1987a)
' contained in the Demand/Supply Planning |

- Strategy; .

* project experience on environmental impact
_ assessments and monitoring studies for gen- :

' eration projects;

' © generic studies of socio-economic impacts |

' of projects; and
' © literature reviews and research on social

' impact assessment.

The social criteria are consistent with the concept
: of sustainable development in that an effort will :
be made to avoid potential effects on the social :
: structure ofadjacent communities, to comment :
: on opportunities for mitigation and compensation

- and to discuss the question of the transfer of :

- benefits/risks to future generations.

- The seven social criteria selected to evaluate
: the alternative plans fall under two broad cat-
egories: socio-economic effects and broader
: societal considerations. Regional employment
: and development are considered to assess the :
: balance of potential benefits and adverse effects 2
: in the area affected by the demand or supply :
: option. The evaluation criteria are as follows:

1. Socio-Economic Effects

* Regional Employment

This criterion will focus, in the context of 2
regional labour supply and skills, on the employ- :
ment opportunities afforded by construction |

and operation of proposed facilities.

¢ Regional Economic Development

Opportunities to develop existing regional :
businesses and services will be discussed along
: with the potential for new businesses and ser-
"vices. Thiscriteria addresses the opportunities
to develop the infrastructure and economic

- base ofa community to facilitate further eco- |

nomic development.

: Effects on the provincial economy are dealt :
- with in Chapter 15 of the Plan Report.

* Local Community Impacts

This criterion will focus on how the size and |

service capacity of communities 1s affected

by the project activities and potential population :
inflow. Many communities would require expan-
sion of community or municipal facilities and:

_ services such as roads, and water and waste |

treatment facilities.
2. Societal Considerations
¢ Social Acceptance

Social acceptability of the plans will depend
on the extent to which Ontario Hydro has

integrated changing social values into its plans.
_ These values relate to environmental perfor-
~ mance; the maximum achievement of publicly- |

_ preferred options such as demand management, -

<Description of Environmental Analysis Process - Chapter Three>
3-5

- non-utility generation, hydraulic generation, :
: and station rehabilitation; the choice of tech- :
nologies; and siting.

Social acceptance is considered froma provin-
cial, regional and local community perspective.

Social acceptance of the Demand/Supply :
: Plans will be addressed more fully through
2 the Public Feedback Program, and the envi- :
: ronmental assessment review process, both

of which will provide opportunities for public

input on the plans.

* Special/Sensitive Groups

Certain population groups may be more affected :
by change than the rest of the population,
: because of their cultural heritage, size, socio-
economic status, or special interests. These
groups will be identified and potential effects
: will be discussed. ,

° Lifestyle Impacts

: This criterion will focus on the character of |
the community, the stability of the population, |
and lifestyle. Typically, younger, rapidly growing -

communities are more resilient to change than

older, more established communities, or com- :
munities with a particular traditional lifestyle.
: Effects on the broader community of the :

province will also be considered.

¢ Distribution of Risks and Benefits

This criterion will consider the distribution
of benefits and risks of the alternative plans
: among population groups, regions, and gen-
erations. Generally, itis preferable that those :
who bear the risks also share equitably in the

benefits.

: 20

1 25

4,0 EVALUATION OF COMMON ELEMENTS IN

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

This section will focus on the potential environmental effects

of the components common to all the alternative plans.

Since little site-specific information is available for many of these

components, much of the discussion is generic in nature.

: The following components are common to :
all the alternative plans: :
: ¢ demand management
: * non-utility generation
: ¢ hydraulic generation
: * station rehabilitation
: ¢ Manitoba purchase

A summary of environmental effects and 2
mitigation associated with each of the common :
: elements is presented in Appendix C.

| 4.1 Demand Management
| 4.1.1 Natural Environment

: Resource Use
: Generally, demand management options :
: (ie., energy efficiency improvements and load |
: shifting) have favourable environmental effects. ,
The focus of these programs is on using energy |
more efficiently (e.g., commercial lighting |
: improvements), thereby achieving more energy |
: services for the same environmental effects : Dept. of Commerce, 1987; NPPC, 1989).
of operation. In addition, successful demand :
7 management programs may defer the need
: for additional new supply. However, the envi- :
ronmental benefits achieved through deferral
: of the need for new supply may be limited, .
: if this deferral contributes to continued use : Emission /Effluents /Wastes

: of less efficient supply resources over the long -

term. Periodic replacement of older, less effi-

cient generating stations with newer, more
: efficient plants has both system efficiency and :
: environmental benefits, given that newer plants :
: will have more comprehensive environmental

: controls and more energy efficient systems.

The success of demand management pro- :
gramis in shifting load to off-peak times may |
also produce environmental benefits by flat- :

: tening the daily demand peak and hence allow-
ing the operation of more efficient and cleaner |

: energy sources.

Environmental characteristics of demand |

- management options have not been scrutinized —
: as extensively as supply options. Most of their |
potential environmental effects relate to the :

manufacture of demand management equip- -
ment and to the disposal of inefficient equip- :
ment. Preliminary estimates of these effects :
indicate that they are negligible when compared :
to the effects of producing the displaced power :
through conventional generation (Michigan :

Measures to improve building or equipment |
efficiency could lead to increased use of quan- ©
tities of certain non-renewable resources (eg.,

insulation, copper).

Insulation of homes and commercial buildings :

4-1

: can reduce opportunities for infiltration of :
: fresh air. This may adversely affect indoor ?
: air quality by increasing concentrations of
: NOx, radon, formaldehyde, volatile organics,
: and carbon monoxide. This potential air quality
: concern can, however, be offset by restricting :
: use of potentially harmful substances (mainly :
: in new buildings or in renovations) and by :
: upgrading ventilation systems (e.g., air exchang- :
: ers) in parallel with new insulation programs.

- Programs to encourage weatherization promote _

- the use of these systems.

- Phasing out and disposal of less efficient |
: appliances and equipment is an important
: part of demand management. However, disposal
: of less efficient appliances, like refrigerators, :
: can create not only a significant waste disposal 2
: problem, but also a potential chlorofluoro- :
: carbon (CFC) problem due to the escape of :
CFCs from compressors and polyurethane insu- :
: lation in refrigerators. Some programs will
: require the management of environmentally :
: sensitive materials. For example, a program :
: to replace fluorescent ballasts requires the :
: safe disposal of old PCB-contaminated ballasts. :
: Although phased out equipment may not pose
: a contaminant problem, it is not easily recycled,

- and therefore contributes to increases in waste

: quantities.
: 4.1.2 Social Environment

- Socio-Economic Effects

: Conservation-related employment will be created
: in communities across the province in many 2
: sectors, including trades required to install :
: and maintain energy efficiency equipment; the |
- material supply and manufacturing sectors; :
: energy service specialists and the personnel :
: required to develop and implement programs. 2

: Although total provincial employment may be :

higher and all communities will benefit, the :
employment benefits created in any one locality 2
will not match the employment benefits of a
major supply project.Because the effects of :
demand management programs will be dis- :
tributed across the province, there is little or :
no opportunity for focused regional development. :

Without major construction activity, demand
management programs are unlikely to create :
significant direct local community impacts. :
However, up-graded energy efficiency standards :
: and building code amendments for new res- :

idential developments and conservation incen- :

tives may affect real estate markets, regional

planning and approvals, and inspection require-
ments. This, in turn, may affect the type, cost, |

and pace of residential development.

Societal Considerations

Demand management through load shifting,

increased efficiency or incentives has potential

impacts on individuals and households. Load :
shifting, through time-of-use rates, may induce :
major changes in the ways energy is used by :
customers. Residential customers, for example, :
may change the pattern of their household 2
activities. Time of use, seasonal, and inter- :
ruptible rates for industry may also result in :
- changes to working hours. Increased use of :
: night shift and weekend operations would affect
2 employees’ personal and family life. 2

Conservation, through the substitution of

: high-efficiency equipment, will have little or
no impact on the lifestyles of Ontarians. The |

same is true of load shifting equipment such ;

as storage water heaters.

4-2

Depending on the structure and availability
of incentive or assistance programs, special
interests or sensitive groups may be adversely
affected. For example, low-income customers
may be affected by energy cost increases, acces- :
sibility to conservation measures or variable
rate structures. In addition, programs for elec-
trically heated residences may be seen as
inequitable by owners of homes with other
heating equipment. Time-of-use rates may also :
be perceived as inequitable by those who are :
unable to take advantage of them. Potential
inequities can be partially addressed by pro-
- viding a broad range of programs with incentives :

structured so that all, or most, customers have :

an opportunity to benefit.

4.2 Non-Utility Generation (NUG)

General Considerations

- The smaller, localized nature of NUG projects,
and the fact that they will be dispersed through- :
out the province, suggests that many of the :
environmental effects associated with these
projects will be less than those for larger, more
centralized, conventional generation options. 2
Figure 4-1 provides an estimate of the atmo- :
spheric emissions for NUGs assumed over the
study period. Although these emissions are
only a small fraction of the total emissions
- associated with each plan, emissions ona per :
TWh basis may be quite similar to larger con- :
: ventional generating stations. 7
Since NUGs have a relatively short con- :

struction schedule, and will be dispersed

2 throughout the province, they will produce :
: limited regional employment and development,
: and will have minimal adverse community
: effects. |

rho

> 35

20:

Figure 4-1 Annual Atmospheric Emissions From NUG (1989-2014)

12 Jee te
S0>
pis
CO,

SO, & NOx * Gg and CO,*Tg
a

0 ee

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.9798 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Note: 1. Assuming NUG mix of :
18.0 % Hydraulic
74.0 % Natural Gas
4.6 % Wood Waste
3.4 % MSW/Landfill Gas

Year

2 Se ee eS ee eee

2. NUG Emissions as % of Ontario Hydro Emissions (1989-2014)

CO,= 6%
NO, = 17%
$0,= 0.4%

<Evaluation of Common Elements in Alternative Plans - Chapter Four>
4-3

The dispersed nature of NUGs may also :

complicate the transmission required to incor- :
7 porate these facilities into the BES. Natural
: and social environmental effects will vary, ?
depending on the length of newline required :
: and other project-specific factors. :

A variety of NUG projects are likely to be

: undertaken in Ontario. NUGs include: gas-
fired cogeneration, municipal solid waste incin- :
eration, wood waste burning, and small :
hydraulic generation. Following are specific
: natural and social environmental concerns :

: associated with each.

4.2.1 Gas-fired Cogeneration
Most of the non-utility generation over the 7
- next 25 years is expected to be some type of :
: gas-fired cogeneration. These gas-fired projects :
2 will produce air emissions (NOx, CO, COs), :
noise, and have some measure of consumptive :
: water use. NOx emissions can be controlled :
with appropriate technologies such as steam :
: injection. Waste disposal concerns should be
minimal since gas burns efficiently. Ifa right- :
: of-way does not already exist, there would be :
effects associated with providing gas pipeline :
: access to a site. |

Cogeneration projects can make industries _

: more energy efficient and hence, more com-
petitive. To the extent that this allows industries :
: to prosper, there may be indirect employment :
and development benefits. However, the advan- :
: tage of reduced energy costs from cogeneration :
may not be sufficient to offset the cost of locating

: in northern or remote communities.

- 4.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Some benefits may arise from increased | uses (eg., canoeing) couldalso be disrupted. |

: Municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities offer
: an opportunity to both reduce local landfill
: requirements and produce electricity. They
: also provide a means of reducing incremental :
methane emissions that could develop from :
: decaying solid municipal wastes. Methane 1s :

4.9.3 Small Hydraulic Generation

' an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but can :

- also be burned to produce electricity.

However, MSW facilities have generally been :
_ strongly opposed in urban areas because of :
- perceived health risks. The potential release :

- of toxics (eg., dioxins) can result from the

: burning of plastics and other organic materials
: in waste. These potential emissions can be :
: effectively controlled through the installation :
: and use of appropriate emission control equip-
: ment. For example, Environment Canada’s :
: National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation :
Program found that lime and filter bag scrubbers :

~ reduced dioxins and furans to detection limits

: (Environment Canada, 1986).

- When these toxic materials are removed :
- from flue gas, they generally end up in the :
- ash produced by the incinerator. Prudent landfill:

' practices (eg., liners) will be required to ensure

: that leachate from any disposal site is controlled.

- requirements are expected to be stringent |

~ and expensive.

The delivery and stockpiling of MSW may

cause concerns about traffic, noise, and odour
_ in the communities surrounding the plant. :

: Prudent processing of wastes, as well as buffering

: from surrounding communities, and adjacent :
: households and businesses, will be important :
: at MSW sites. As well, it is likely that other :
special considerations will be needed for nearby

- residents.

employment and expansion of some municipal :
services such as roads. Regional economic :
development is not likely, and distribution |

of risks and benefits could be an important :

local issue.

: Small hydraulic developments are those with
capacities of less than 10 MW. These are usually :
developed on rivers that have existing control
structures, or dams that are not currently used
- for power generation purposes. Many of these :
- structures were originally installed for flood control :
4.2.4 Wood Waste Burning Plants

purposes. Some were previously used for other |

industrial purposes (eg., grist mills). New dams

may be constructed at sites on smaller waterways

close to localized industry requiring electricity. :
From a sustainable development and gov- :

ernment energy policy viewpoint, encourage- :

ment of small, private hydraulic development

_ isdesirable, since it makes use of an indigenous, |

renewable resource. Customer and public pref-

erence for further hydraulic development is :

also very high.

Redevelopment of existing control structures
- and dam sites is expected to have few adverse :
: Since MSW facilities will likely be sited close
: to large urban areas, environmental control

environmental effects other than some short-

term, localized effects on water flows and sed- :

imentation patterns. Prudent planning of these

activities to periods of low river use will reduce

" any potential negative impacts.

Development of a new dam on a waterway

could have significant effects on resident |
_ fish populations by disrupting spawning and
migratory patterns. Other existing water :

4-4

Construction of the dam could also have some :
temporary, localized effects on flows and tur- :
bidity. However, careful construction planning
should minimize long-term impacts. In par-
ticular, blasting must be timed to avoid -
: biologically sensitive periods (ie., spawning
: seasons).

Since most small hydraulic facilities tend :
to be operated as run-of-the-river (non-peaking)
plants, there is limited reservoir storage. Water :

level fluctuations are minimal, with little impact

on flow patterns.

Since these plants will be developed in con-
Junction with existing pulp and paper oper- :
ations, most facilities will be sited in northern 7
Ontario, where the bulk of forestry activity :
occurs. The plants can likely be accommodated
- on existing kiln sites. :
Wood burning requires some use of cooling
: water, and produces atmospheric emissions :
(CO, COs, NOx, particulates), as well as ash :
_ residue, which requires disposal. Appropriate |
stack emission controls, especially for partic-
- ulates, and prudent waste management practices,
2 should minimize concerns. Burning wood waste :
reduces methane emissions that would likely :
: occur if such wastes were stockpiled and decayed. :

Methane promotes greenhouse warming. -

: Host industries could become more com- :
: petitive, if energy savings are realized through 7
wood burning facilities. Construction of a wood :
- waste facility in, or near, a community with
high unemploymentand need for development :
thay provide a significant local economic stim-
2 ulus. Social acceptance of this type of plant |
: may be high due to its familiarity and existing
: role in the regional economy. ?

= tab

20:

35:

4.3 Hydraulic Generation

- 4.3.1 Natural Environment
Hydraulic generation is a renewable, indigenous
resource and, as such, is preferred from a
7 sustainable development perspective. There
are an estimated 18 undeveloped hydraulic
sites in the province which are considered to
: be cost-effective for Hydro to develop (see
Appendix B). Except for the Little Jackfish :
project in northwestern Ontario and expansion
of the Sir Adam Beck facility on the Niagara :
River, the majority of these sites (i.e, 12) are
within the Moose River drainage region or
involve redevelopments of existing sites. The
Action Plans include 11 of these undeveloped -
or underdeveloped sites (see Chapter 18, Plan
Report). Details of the Hydraulic Plan are
discussed in Chapter 12 of the Plan Report. 7
Ontario Hydro’s proposal to use a river
system approach to develop these sites has a
number of environmental advantages. First, :
an orderly and sequential development of sites
on one river system will ensure that the devel-
2 opment of the hydraulic sites is compatible ,
with the other resource uses, mainly recreation,
within the river basin. Second, in contrast to
new developmentin a pristine watershed, the
river system approach will tend to minimize
the environmental damage, by taking advantage
of existing infrastructure such as roads, rights-
of-way, and construction camps. Ontario Hydro
is pursuing approvals for a 30-year development :
plan for the remaining potential in the Moose
River Basin. Discussions have been initiated
_ with interested government and public
representatives.

Hydraulic developments, however, are not :
without environmental effects. The major
environmental change relates to reservoir
creation and the related problems of land/habi- :

tat displacement, loss of riverine fish habitat,
increased mercury levels in the reservoir,
erosion/siltation

and problems.

Redevelopments, where there is little or no

incremental flooding required, will generally
- have less environmental impact than new devel- |
opments. Incremental flooding associated
with the 18 sites included in the current alter- :
native plans is estimated at about 8973 ha,

and is summarized on a site-specific basis in

: Appendix B.
Concerns at Little Jackfish relate mainly
to water quality issues (ie., erosion control
and elevated mercury levels in fish). Potential :

environmental concerns associated with the
Niagara River development include possible

water quality changes due to in-stream con-
struction of the intake and powerhouse struc-
tures, alteration of fish migration patterns
and habitat, and potential disturbance of envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas or rare wildlife :
and plants. Issues in the Moose River Basin
relate to potential effects on fisheries; effects :

associated with providing access (eg., increased

hunting pressure on local wildlife resources)

and developing aggregate resources; and down-
stream effects in the James Bay estuary area. :

There are several mitigation measures which
reduce the environmental impact of reservoir
development. The primary one is the devel- :
opment of a reservoir preparation plan which
: will help to reduce mercury levels and maximize :
opportunities for multiple use of reservoirs. :
: Reforestation programs may also help to offset
resource /habitat loss concerns associated with
flooding. Site-specific effects and mitigation 2

4-5

associated with each proposed development |
in the hydraulic program will be assessed in -

| project-specific EAs.

The only sizeable remaining resource in ©

the province, after the current 18 site programs,
is about 3800 MW of capacity in the Hudson
Bay Lowlands (ie., Albany, Severn, Attawapiscat
and Winisk). At this time, development of

these hydraulic resources is costly, requires
substantial flooding, and is likely to encounter :
serious opposition from Native and naturalist
interests. (Ontario Hydro, 1982).

Present government policies relating to :

hydraulic development could affect future devel-
: opment of this renewable resource. Newly- :

approved Provincial Parks policies (MNR, 1988) :
prohibit the development of hydraulic gen-
eration facilities, including flooding from reser-

voirs, within approved park boundaries. This :
_ provision will limit the ability of Hydro and

the private sector to pursue certain hydraulic
sites. For example, the proposed Waterway
Park on the Missinaibi River in northeastern 7
Ontario will preclude development of at least
one site on the Moose River. :

4.3.2 Social Environment

Socio-Economic Effects

Orderly development of northern hydraulic sites
should provide opportunity for regional employ- :
mentand developmentin the north. Development, 7
redevelopmentor extension of sites in the Moose
River Basin could provide up to 23,500 person- :
years of employment over 30 years. Workers :
could transfer from one site to the next, and :
economic benefits in regional centres would 7
continue throughout the period. However, to :
ensure that employment and development :

- opportunities are realized, a co-operative effort
- by Hydro, construction trade unions, and the :

: provincial and federal governments would be :

- necessary.

- Development of individual northern :
: hydraulic sites such as Little Jackfish may provide
the opportunity for short-term construction :
: employment. Again, realization of this benefit :
: will require a co-operative effort by Hydro, :
: trade unions, and governments to ensure that :
: employment opportunities are available for :
: local residents. There may be some short-term :
: benefits for local retail employment, but few :

: long-term jobs. Any resulting “boom-bust” effect

: would require mitigation measures.

Northern hydraulic developments may have :
- additional regional developmenteffects, such |
" aselectrification of remote communities and |

- improved road access, which are prerequisites

- for economic development.

Communities in the vicinity of the northern :
: projects generally lack the infrastructure and :
2 services to accommodate an influx of people, :
: and the structure to manage a coordinated
2 response to changing community circumstances.
: Even with self-contained workforce camps, some
: effects will be felt on surrounding communities’
: retail and service sectors. These will be relatively
: short-term for individual sites, but long-term :
: in communities serving the Moose River Basin
: development. In both instances, mitigation :

- and monitoring programs will be necessary.

A Niagara development will have limited
2 negative impact on the community and its
: municipal services. Potential effects relate more :
: to construction activity in an urban area, includ- :

ing traffic, noise, dust, etc., which may arise

from the construction of tunnels and the dis-
- posal of excavated material as well as from |

- the construction of the generating facility.

The Niagara development construction work- :
force will be supplied by a local and commuting :
workforce. It will provide only short-term :
: regional benefit. The development may be :
of concern to tourism interests if construction :

or operation of the facilities is disruptive.

Smaller projects, such as Lake Gibson and |
Big Chute, will provide short-term construction |

employment but will have limited regional :

development potential.

Societal Considerations
Development of northern hydraulic sites will

- impacts on traditional land uses, lifestyles and
livelihood, and participation in the employment
and economic benefits of the developments. 2
Native people and others dependent on sub- :
sistence, commercial, or recreational fishing, :
: will be concerned about the effects on fish :

populations and the potential for mercury |

contamination of fish in flooded areas.

Hydraulic developments in recreation areas

may be of concern to cottagers, boaters, fish-

ermen, and other users if water flow or quality

are adversely affected.

Social acceptance of the Niagara devel- :
opment will be improved by measures taken |

to prevent construction and operation from |

affecting the aesthetics of the area.

Northern hydraulic projects could result :
in changes to the lifestyle of residents and :
to the character of communities. Traditional :
activities of Native people may be affected :
by alteration of the environment and by changes :
to employment patterns as a result of the pro-

- jects. For example, flooding and concerns about |

mercury levels in fish may result in changes

to traditional hunting, fishing, and dietary :
: patterns. The character of communities ser-
- vicing Moose River Basin projects is likely to

4-6

change as a result of the long-term development. -
However, electrification of northern commu-

nities, or improved service will be of benefit -

to these communities.

Northern hydraulic developments have sig- :
: nificant potential to adversely affect the com- :
: munity, special interests, and lifestyles. These |
effects may be balanced by potential employ-
ment and economic development benefits. :
: Special initiatives will ensure that those adversely :
: affected share in the benefits. :

4.4 Station Rehabilitation

arouse Native concerns such as land claims, :

4.4.1 Natural Environment

Rehabilitation work at existing hydraulic stations
is unlikely to have major environmental effects.
Provided dam repair or replacement work is
carefully scheduled to avoid biologically sensitive
periods (e.g., fish spawning), effects are likely :

to be of short duration and very localized.

Providing access to some older dam-sites :
could be difficult. Access road routing must :
be undertaken in consultation with potentially :
affected individuals. Anticipated upgrades at :
the hydraulic stations themselves (e.g., runner
2 replacements) are likely to involve measures :
that do not appreciably change flow patterns :
in the affected rivers. A Class EA process has 2
: been established to review hydraulic station :
modification projects. If anticipated effects :
are judged to be significant, a full individual

EA may be necessary.

Retubing at nuclear stations, particularly
in the 1990s, will require that lost power from :
nuclear reactors is made up by increased use 7
of fossil stations. However, through Ontario :
Hydro’s Acid Gas Control Program, appropriate
control measures will be putin place to maintain

acid gas emission levels within regulatory limits.

35:

Fossil station rehabilitation also has some poten- :
: tial to affect the natural environment. Much
: of the rehabilitation efforts will be aimed at :
: restoring operating efficiency of these plants,
: which will tend to reduce acid gas emissions
and effluents over the long term. However,
anumber of planned measures (e.g., installation
of scrubbers) have the potential to significantly
increase solid waste volumes produced, and
may therefore require increased landfill storage
space.

To reduce long-term waste disposal require-
ments at these stations, efforts will be undertaken :
to maximize re-use and recycling opportunities.
For example, with some modification of the :
: FGD process, scrubber waste from certain tech- :
: nologies can be used for wallboard gypsum
production. Production of synthetic FGD gyp- :
sum could also result in reduced land distur- :
20 : bance associated with natural gypsum mining 2
: in southern Ontario. Fly ash has been used 2
extensively as a cement additive for mine backfill 2
and for hazardous liquid waste stabilization :
purposes. Pending government regulations
pertaining to the use of flyash and other com-
bustion by-products for backfill material will
affect future opportunities to use these wastes.

- 4.4.2 Social Environment
Rehabilitation projects may offer some oppor- :
tunities for local employment where new con- 4.5 Manitoba Purchase
struction is required. Where substantial :

- engineering changes are needed, specialized, ©

skilled labour will be required. Employment :
opportunities could provide an importantlocal :
economic stimulus in areas where unemploy- :

ment levels are currently high. Construction

times associated with these activities will be :
substantially less than those for full station :
development, probably in the 3-5 year range. :

The communities around most existing sta-
tions on the BES are stable and, in most :
instances, have become accepted parts of the :
community infrastructure. Rehabilitation pro-
jects will be limited mainly to within the existing
site boundaries and are not expected to have :

any significant long-term impact on nearby :

established communities. There may be some
localized, short-term effects (e.g., noise, dust)
associated with rehabilitation construction

activities. In some cases, rehabilitation projects :
could provide an opportunity for dealing with :
certain persistent problems related to station :
operation (e.g., dust blowing off coal piles :
or ash disposal areas). In many instances, reha- 2
bilitation projects are being undertaken to :
maintain or upgrade a station’s energy pro- :
ducing and/or environmental performance
(e.g., installing FGD). Therefore, there should :
be a net overall improvement in the environ- 2
: mental quality around the site over the long- :

' term.

Long-term firm purchases of hydraulic power 2
from neighbouring provinces, such as Manitoba, 2
are an alternative to building new supply facilities
- in Ontario (Ontario Hydro, 1989a).

4-7

Any environmental effects in Ontario result-
ing from the Manitoba purchase would be |
related to transmission incorporation. The |

Manitoba Purchase would require up to 1,100 :

km of new right-of-way in Ontario, which would |
occupy a total area of about 9,000 ha. :

Establishing a new transmission right-of- :
way from the Manitoba border to the Sault :
Ste. Marie area would displace timberland, :
infringe on several Forest Management 2
Agreementareas, and may affect mineral and
aggregate deposits. |

Routing could affect cottaging , hunting
and fishing activities, especially commercial :

: fly-in operations. Many relatively unspoiled |
scenic river valleys and other natural areas
: will also be affected.

Other concerns include rural residential
development, which exists in significant con- :
centrations in some areas, and the issue of
increased access into remote areas.

Access is an important resource management :
issue in northern Ontario. Increased access :
for transmission line construction and main-
tenance is seen as a benefit by some, and an 2
unwanted intrusion by others. These impacts :
can be mitigated by routing transmission facil- :
ities to avoid or reduce disruption and dis- :

: placement, and by implementing impact
management programs such as application
- of site restoration guidelines.

Most of the socio-economic concerns and |
environmental considerations which may arise

from the Manitoba purchase will occur in that -

: province, and will be reviewed in Manitoba. —

5.0 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG
MAJOR SUPPLY CASES

Before dealing with environmental differences among

major supply Cases, it is useful to review

the typical environmental effects and potential mitigation associated

with the major supply options.

| 5.1 Typical Environmental Effects
- and Mitigation Associated with
- Major Supply Options

Environmental effects associated with trans- :
mission incorporation for these major supply :
- Cases are also discussed briefly. Summary tables

showing typical effects and mitigation for each 3

- supply option appear in Appendix C.
3 5.1.1 Fossil Fuel Options
: 9.1.1.1 Conventional Steam Cycle (CSC)

Coal

There are potential natural and social envi-

ronmental effects throughout the entire fuel |
: phurization (FGD), flue gas conditioning (FGC), |

: cycle for a conventional steam cycle (CSC)

- coal generating station. The largest effects

on the natural environment will be those asso-

- ciated with coal extraction (e.g., coal mining |

and transport); air emissions (Table 5-1) from

| coal combustion (e.g., SO, NOx, COs, par-

ticulates); cooling water use; and waste disposal

: (i.e., coal ash and scrubber by-products).

Atmospheric emissions, SO. and NOx, can
_ adversely affect air and water quality, vegetation
- and human health, both in the vicinity and |

: downwind of a CSC plant.

Increasingly, CO. emissions are being linked :

: to global warming trends.

Cooling water use can impinge/entrain :
7 fish and other aquatic life in the adjacent aquatic :
: environment. Waste disposal can produce nui- :
sance fugitive dust emissions or leachate effects
on nearby water sources. Other potential effects :
relate to increased land displacement for coal
extraction, generation, transmission, and waste
- disposal facilities,
: Many of these potential effects can be 2
reduced or eliminated through mitigation pro- :
grams. Air emission concerns can be reduced :
7 by burning low-sulphur coal (eg., Western :
3 Canadian coal) and/or installing equipment :
3 to control acid gas and particulate emissions :

(e.g., electrostatic precipitators, flue gas desul- :

or selective catalytic reduction (SCR)). Prudent :
_ handling, storage, and recycling/re-use of wastes :
can significantly reduce waste management :
concerns. Wherever possible, existing sites
: and rights-of-way will be used to minimize 2
land consumption/expropriation. Extensive :
~ environmental monitoring will be carried out

in the vicinity of stations to ensure that reg- |

ulatory standards are met.

CSC coal generation can also produce social

_ and community effects. The most prominent :
possible effects are those related, directly or :
- indirectly, to employment, regional devel-

5-1

> 30

: opment, and local community effects.
: Development of a large CSC facility often ;
: increases employment and spending in the
: local host community and surrounding region.
Frequently these economic benefits offset the
adverse effects of community disruption (e.g., :
negative effects on social networks and infras-

. | tructure). This is especially true in northern

7 ee

or remote communities.
Community impact monitoring programs. :
and impact management agreements are devel-
oped in consultation with host communities
to manage the potential socio-economic impacts
of a large industrial facility like a coal-fired
generating station. Local lifestyles may be :
affected if there are real or perceived effects
on the natural environment. Public acceptance :
- of CSC facilities, as identified through Ontario _
Hydro’s public attitude research, is linked to
concern about this technology’s contribution :
- to acid rain, and long-term environmental 7
degradation associated with global warming. :
: Special interest groups, local residents and
businesses may be concerned about changes :
to the local economic base, health and safety :
risks, and distribution of costs and benefits.

a Gl Be Integrated Gasification
- Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Gasification is the burning or “cooking” of :
coal to produce a combustible material known
as syngas. Coal-derived syngas is low in sulphur :
: content; moreover, the sulphur can be effectively
and cheaply removed. IGCC plants can use :
high-sulphur coal, provided the coal has low
moisture content. |
| The process takes place in a gasifier, which
is essentially an oven where temperature and
pressure are used to drive syngas off the coal. :
Gasifiers integrated with other systems are

referred to as integrated gasification combined ?
cycle (IGCC) systems. The term “combined :

cycle” refers to the ability to generate electrical

energy from syngas simultaneously in two ways;

first, by burning the syngas to drive a combustion

turbine and second, by producing steam from :

‘the hot syngas and CTU exhaust gases to drive
: a steam turbine.

An IGCC facility can be constructed in a :
“phased” or “unphased” manner. Phasing con-
struction offers the ability to increase plant
size in line with demand and spread out capital
investments. There are three phases: 1) com-

bustion turbine, burning natural gas; 2) com- :

bined cycle; 3) coal gasification, a step taken
if price increases make natural gas uncom-
petitive. Each phase can be constructed in
two to four years.

Many of the potential natural and socio-
economic environmental effects associated
with an IGCC station will be similar to those :

: for a conventional steam cycle plant, but :

will be of a lesser magnitude. Natural envi- |
ronmental effects will be associated with coal :
extraction (e.g., coal mining and transport), 2
air emissions from gasified coal combustion :

: (e.g., NOx, particulates), cooling water use, -
: and waste disposal.

Relative to conventional steam cycle tech- :
nology, IGCC SO, and COs, emissions will be :
proportionally lower, while NOx emissions :
may be slightly higher (Table 5-1). NOx emis- :
sions are controlled in the gas turbine via :
steam/water injection and combustion control. :
As combustion units increase in size, they oper-

: ate at higher temperatures. Asa result, NOx |

emissions may increase. Multi-nozzle combustors

: with increased steam injection, or SCR, can :

be used to reduce NOx emissions and at the |
same time improve turbine reliability (EPRI,

5-2

Table 5-1

Option
Number Description ;
1 : 4x800 MW US Coal CSC/FGD/SCR

2 4x500 MW US Coal CSC/FGD/SCR
3 4x500 MW WC Coal CSC/SCR

4 2x150 MW Oil CTU

5 2x150 MW Gas CTU

6 2x660 MW CC/SCR — Intermediate
7 2x660 MW CC - Peaking

8 4x660 MW Phased IGCC*

9 4x660 MW Unphased IGCC/SCR

Environmental Performance of Fossil Options (g/kWh)

Solid
SO, NOx CO, Wastes
1.6 0.25-0.31 860 95
1.6 0.25-0.31 860 95
2.3 0.25-0.31 910 48
1.6 0.88 860 0
0 0.87 605 0
0 0.25-0.31 430 0
0 0.62 425 0
0.52 0.30-0.53 905 31
0.47 0.25-0.31 805 28

* Data shown for CTU and CC phases are similar to Option 5 and 7 respectively.

Source; Ontario Hydro, 1989d

| 1988). Baseload IGCC will likely require SCR. :
: Although the IGCC technology does not require :

- removal of SOs, it may require control of H.S |

produced as a by-product of the gasification

: process.

: Since a large proportion of electrical energy :
generated by an IGCC plant is produced using :
: air-cooled gas turbines, cooling water require-
: ments will be lower than those for a CSC plant. :
: As with a CSC facility, there will be land 2
: displacement concerns related to coal extrac- :
2 tion, generating sites, transmission corridors, :
: and waste disposal. Compared to a CSC using :
7 unscrubbed coal, waste disposal requirements :
2 will be similar; compared to a CSC station :
with FGD, IGCC waste disposal requirements .
will be significantly less (Table 5-1). Prudent :
: handling, storage, and recycling/re-use of wastes ,
: can significantly reduce waste management :
concerns. For example, elemental sulphur :
removed during the gasification process can

5-3

be sold to the chemical industry. The slag
removed from the combustor chamber consists
of a non-hazardous, inert “glassy” material, :
: which is easy to handle and can be used for
: construction purposes (Ferguson, 1989). :

The main socio-economic effects of an IGCC :
facility are related to employment and regional
development. Given its phased, modular nature 2
(1.e., station modules could be built elsewhere :
and transported to the construction site), peak
construction workforce requirements are likely :
to be lower for an IGCC facility than for a
comparably-sized CSC facility. However, the :
phased construction program for IGCC may :
provide employment opportunities over a longer

period of time, thereby leading to additional |

regional economic development.

Since an IGCC facility contains elements :
of a chemical plant, there will likely be health,

safety and odour (eg., HS emissions associated

: 290

oe 39

: with gasification) concerns. People living or :
: working near these facilities may feel they :
: bear more risks than others living or working 2
: further away. However, clean coal technologies, :
: such as IGCC, produce relatively low emission :
: levels and are hence favoured over conventional
: CSC facilities, even if the latter have scrubbers.

- 5.1.1.3 Combined Cycle (CC)
Relative to CSC or IGCC, the potential natural
and social environmental effects of Combined 2 5.1.1.4 Combustion Turbine Units (CTU)

Cycle generation are moderate. The largest :
effects are associated with gas extraction (e.g.,
production, pipeline transport, and gas storage)
and air emissions from natural gas combustion
: (e.g., NOx, GOo, and carbon monoxide). :

Combined Cycle generation burns natural

gas very efficiently. Asa result, acid gas emissions, :
particularly SO, and CO, emissions are lower :
2 than those for both CSC (with SCR) and IGCC :
(Table 5-1). NOx emissions may be slightly :
higher. These potential adverse effects can
: be mitigated by controlling NOx emissions
: (e.g., steam injection, urea injection, selective
: catalytic reduction) and extensive monitoring.
Waste disposal concerns are minimal. There :
will be concerns about land required for gas
extraction, generating sites, transmission, and :
gas transportation corridors. :

From a sustainable development viewpoint,

resources is not encouraged. Natural gas is
more efficiently used in residential heating
than in generating electricity. This is one reason :
: why gas-fired generation is used for peaking :
, purposes primarily.
: Combined Cycle generation can also produce 2
7 social and economic effects. The dominant
potential effects are those related, directly
or indirectly, to increased employment and :

regional development. These can be addressed
with community impact monitoring and impact
management agreements. There also may be :
local lifestyles effects, especially for people :
in the vicinity of the facility, if there are real :
or perceived effects on the natural environment. :
Public reaction to these effects, however, may :

| be moderated by their preference for natural
: gas-fired generation.

The potential natural and social environmental :
effects associated with Combustion Turbine
Units are similar to those for Combined Cycle. :
CTU generation has the ability to burn a variety

of refined fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, diesel :
: fuel). CTUs are mainly used for peaking pur- :

poses, but operate at relatively low efficiencies :
compared to CC or IGCC. Natural gas will :
likely be the preferred fuel for CTUs. Among :
the fossil options, CTUs produce the least :
natural environmental effects. The largest effects
are those associated with long-term use of :
natural gas, fossil fuel extraction (e.g., pipeline :
transport and gas storage), air emissions from :
fossil fuel combustion (e.g., NOx, and carbon
monoxide) and noise. :

Oil-fired CTUs produce more SO, and CO, |

- emissions than gas-fired units. NOx emissions 3
: for both are considerably higher than for CSC

long-term use of scarce, non-renewable (with SCR), CC or IGCC (Table 5-1). These :

potential effects can be mitigated by controlling :
combustion emissions (e.g., steam injection)

and through monitoring. Due to the low height

at which these combustion emissions are :

- released, ambient air quality criteria may be -

a concern, particularly in heavily industrialized
areas where the airshed is already extensively :
utilized. On-site noise levels could also be :

5-4

: increased. However, CTU silencer design should :
minimize any offsite disturbance. Some land :
will be displaced for fuel extraction, generating :
sites, transmission corridors, and fuel trans-
: port. Waste management concerns will be
minimal. Land use concerns will be reduced :
: if CTUs are placed mainly on existing generat- :
ing station sites.

Je GIGS, particularly those on existing sites,
: will have modest effects on the social envi- :

_ ronment. Principal concerns are likely to be :

- impacts on air quality, health, and recreation. :
Beneficial effects will include employment :
and regional development opportunities. Socio- :
: economic effects would likely be more significant
: in northern or remote communities. These
effects can be mitigated or enhanced through
: emission controls, community impact moni- :
: toring and impact management programs, and :
initiatives for local hiring.

5.1.2 Nuclear Options

The potential effects of nuclear power on
: the natural environmentare primarily related :
: to uranium mining, radionuclide releases, cool- :
ing water use, and the management of radio- :
: active wastes. |
Typical radionuclide releases from a nuclear
: plant may include tritium, noble gases, iodine
(I)3;), and radioactive particulates. Radioactive
: releases may occur in cooling water systems
or air exhaust/ventilation systems, as a result
2 of inadvertent discharges and spills, and during :
2 transport of contaminated materials. These
: potential releases are managed through a series 2
of preventive, mitigative, monitoring, and con- :
: trol measures built into the design and operation
: of each nuclear generating station. These

include emergency reactor shutdown, con-

_ If approved, site selection will start in the »

Ket)

tainment (e.g. vacuum building), continuous
- filtering of air/exhaust systems. Additional |
protection is provided through designation :

of a 1 km exclusion zone.

Stringent waste container design and :
shipment regulations are utilized to prevent
- potential releases during transport of radio- :
: active materials. :

Radionuclide emissions are regulated by
the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) :
and must not exceed a site-specific Derived :
Emission Limit (DEL). Ontario Hydro monitors -
and controls its emissions, on an annual average

basis, to within 1% of the Derived Emission -

Limit set by AECB.

Annual tritium and noble gas releases are
the principal emissions that must be controlled :
to meet DEL targets. In 1988, tritium releases :
at Pickering NGS accounted for just over 1% :
of the DEL (1.12%) while noble gas releases
"were about 0.15% of the DEL. Only trace |
: amounts of I;,, and radioactive particulates :
were released, accounting for less than 0.02% 2

of the DEL.

Tritium is a mildly radioactive beta emitter :
with a half-life of 12.5 years. To reduce the
_ risk of radiation exposure, a Tritium Removal
, Facility (TRF) has been constructed at the
Darlington NGS site to recover tritium from
: trittum-contaminated heavy water from all exist- :
ing Hydro reactors. Noble gases are chemically

inert and are not retained in the body for :

long periods of time.

Deep geologic disposal of high level radioac- :
- tive wastes (ie., used fuel) is the focus of work
being carried out by Atomic Energy of Canada :
Ltd. (AECL). This disposal concept will be
reviewed by a Federal Environmental

_ Assessment Review Panel, starting in 1991.

late 1990s. In the meantime, used fuel wastes
are being well managed at existing generating
stations. The higher volume of low and inter- :
mediate level radioactive wastes are managed
centrally, using licensed incineration and storage
facilities at the Bruce Nuclear Power
Development (BNPD).
Significant quantities of wastes are also
produced during uranium mining activities
and are subject to environmental regulations.
Conventional (non-radiological) effects of
nuclear generation relate to cooling water
use, emissions from construction/operations :
machinery and operational refuse. :
: Expansion of the nuclear program will :
require increased heavy water production, result-
ing in increases in low level hydrogen sulphide :
(H)S) and sulphur dioxide (SO) emissions :
at BNPD. Preventive monitoring and mitigative :
measures (eg., flare stacks) are undertaken :
to control H,S emission levels. : 5.2 Evaluation of Case Differences
: There are significant land requirements
for uranium mining, uranium tailings disposal, :
generating site development, used fuel/low 2
: level radwaste disposal/storage and transmission : CSC, CANDU units, etc.). While the environ- :
: incorporation. :
- Mostof the socio-economic effects and broad
societal considerations related to nuclear gen-
eration are similar to those of any large power
generation project, but with additional issues
associated with nuclear-related health and safety
concerns. Some people may choose to change
their lifestyles because of their perception
of risk; in extreme cases this could prompt
them to move to a new community. Public :
acceptance of nuclear facilities will depend :
on attitudes at local, regional and provincial 7
levels. Potential socio-economic impacts will 7
be addressed through community impact mon- :
7 itoring and impact agreements. :

5.1.3 Transmission Requirements

The land requirement for rights-of-way is the

major transmission-related environmental con- :
cern. 3

The overall environmental impact of a trans- :
mission line will vary with its length and the :

: types and amounts of resources and land uses

encountered. While some land uses such as |
timber production are displaced by a trans- :

: mission right-of-way, others such as agricultural

crop production may continue with some |
modifications and inefficiencies. Many impacts |
can be mitigated by selecting routes that avoid

important environmental features, natural

resources and land uses. Typically, transmission :
facilities occupy only avery small percentage
of the total ROW area (eg., less than one per-
cent), leaving large areas available for other :

compatible uses.

As described in Section 2, each alternative :
Case considers different combinations of sup-
ply technologies (ie., combinations of CTUs, |

mental effects of each of these supply com- |

ponents are described in some detail above, |
this section focuses on the differences in :
environmental effects, natural and social, :
among the major supply Cases under the me- :
dian load forecast. :

For the natural environment, estimates of :
resource use and emissions/effluents/waste :
production were derived by applying the criteria :
outlined in Section 3.3.1 to develop a series :
of emission/use factors (see Appendix A). :
These factors are used to equate total or fuel- :
specific energy production in a particular Case 7
with a resulting environmental effect. This :

- effect is assumed to be directly proportional |
: to the amount of emission released or resource .

Table 5-2. Cumulative Effects 1989 — 2014: Natural Environment

(Median Load)

Criterion
A. Resource Use
Non-Renewables: Fuel
1. Coal
2. Oil
3. Gas
4. Uranium
Non-Renewables: Other
1. Limestone (for FGD)
Water Use
1. Water (Generation Related)
2. Water (Life Cycle)
Land Use
1.Land (Generation Related)
2.Land (Life Cycle)
B. Emissions / Effluents / Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
1. $0,
2. NOx
3. Total Acid Gas (SO,+ NOx)
4.C0,
5. Radionuclides
6. Trace Elements
7. Particulates
Aquatic Effluents
1. Thermal Discharge
2. Radionuclides
3. Uranium Mining Effluent
4. Coal Mining Effluent
Wastes
1. Coal Ash
2. FGD Wastes
3. Used Nuclear Fuel
4. Low Level Radioactive Waste
5. Uranium Mine Tailings
6. Total Wastes

23 22 15
131.0 176.0 228.0
0.3 0.8 1.7
0.0 30.0 252.0
57.0 55.0 53.0
2.6 3.6 42
567.0 595.0 541.0
1.57 1.55 1.54
17.2 15.3 15.4
59.0 60.0 63.0
2.0 2.6 3.0
0.5 0.6 0.8
73) 3.2 3.8
325.0 419.0 523.0
TS he 6.9
17.0 23.0 30.0
6.5 8.7 11.0
24.7 24.3 24.0
44 42 41
8.4 8.1 77
0.5 0.7 0.8
12.5 16.8 22.4
4.8 6.7 79
57.5 59.3 o29
23.0 22.1 oh2
36.2 34.9 33.3
53.7 58.4 63.7

Case

255.0
2.4
327.0
51.0

530.0
1.51

15.5
66.0

3.1
0.8
3.9

590.0

6.8
34.0
12.4

23.7
4.0
75
0.9

24.7
10.8
51.4
20.6
32.4
67.9

341.0
3.5
519.0
46.0

10.8

504.0
1.50

15.8
72.0

3.2
1.0
4.2
815.0
6.0
48.0
17.3

23.0
3.6
6.8
1.3

31.8
20.6
46.6
18.6
29.3
81.8

Units

Tg
GI
Gms
Gg

Gm3

Tm3

Ha103
Ha103

Tg
Ci10s
Gg
Mg104

Tje106
Ci10s
Tg
Tg

Tg
Tg
Gg
Gg
Tg
Tg

I= /

> 40

35:

generation will determine the amount of land
disturbed for coal mining, levels of acid gas
emissions, and ash/FGD waste volumes.
: Estimates for all the Cases are summarized
in Table 5-2 and Figures 5-1 to 5-7. For :
7 the most part, these estimates provide infor-
mation on cumulative resource use and :
: emissions/effluents/ wastes for the entire
study period, 1989 to 2014. In a number of |
Cases (Figures 5-4 and 5-5), annual esti-
mates are provided to illustrate certain impli- :
cations (e.g., compliance with acid gas emission :
: regulations).
: In addition to estimates for all Cases, a :
series of indices (Figures 5-8 to 5-17) are
developed for each natural environment cri- :
terion group, to evaluate the normalized per-
formance (ona per TWh basis) of each Case :
over the study period. These estimates are
utilized to assess the relative natural environ-
mental implications of each alternative Case :
and provide a basis for comparing the Cases. :
Social criteria are applied less quantitatively.
, Judgments on potential impacts are largely
based on past experience at Hydro and other
large industrial development projects in Ontario. :
The implications of changes in load growth,
assumed planning period, proposed regulatory :
changes (e.g., CO emission limits, zero dis-
charge, waste reduction targets), and siting
: on Case performance are discussed in Section
5.3. Opportunities for avoiding or mitigating

- potential environmental effects of alternative

Cases are addressed in Section 6.0.

5.91 Case 23

used. For example, the amount of coal-fired :

5.2.1.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Resource Use
Case 23 is characterized by the heavy reliance :
on nuclear generation, and as such, has the
lowest consumption of non-renewable coal,
oil and gas resources among the alternative :
Cases (Figure 5-1). Uranium use is higher
[10-23%] than for all other Cases. The fact
that uranium use is not significantly different :
among Cases reflects the continued reliance

- inal Cases on the existing nuclear component, |

up to and including Darlington, to supply a

large portion of the system load during this ;

study period.Normalized coal use declines over
the study period (Figure 5-8), while natural :
gas and oil use are negligible. Uranium use :
increases slightly over the study period. 2

Life cycle (mining to waste disposal) water :
use (Figure 5-2) for this Case is slightly higher :
[up to 4%] than that for all other alterna- :
tive Cases, while cooling water requirements 7
are noticeably higher [6-12 %] than fossil-
based Cases and marginally higher [2-5 %] 3
than Case 15 and the other nuclear-based Case
(Case 22). The higher water requirements of :
Cases 22 and 23 reflect the higher cooling
water flows associated with nuclear, versus fossil :
generating stations. Life cycle requirements
become more similar with the inclusion of :
water use for both uranium and coal mining.

Normalized water use decreases over the plan- ©

: ning period (Figure 5-8).

Life cycle land displacement (Figure 5-3)

: associated with this Case is the lowest among
the alternative Cases, reflecting lower mining
_ and waste disposal requirements for the nuclear

5-8

Figure 5-1 Non—Renewable Resource Use-Median Load Forecast

Coal Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) Natural Gas Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014)
600
500
400
E 300
200
4
100
0
Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15
Limestone Required For FGD — Cumulative (1989-2014)
12
10 |
|
coe
4
a
0
Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15
Uranium Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014) Oil Consumption — Cumulative (1989-2014)
60 4.0
50 ; 3.5
; 3.0 _|
40
2.5
+
& 30 ® 20
20 1.5
1.0
10
1 0.5
0 0.0
Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5-9

Figure 5-2 Water Use—Mining and Generation—Median Load Forecast

Coal Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014) Uranium Mine Effluent — Cumulative (1989-2014)
: 1400 9,000
Re: 1200 6,000
ane 7,000
Ves «= 1000 a
: E = 6,000
g 3
4 Cc =
5 800 & 5,000
; S 2
E 600 E 4,000
: o 5 2
: i=
: 2 = 3,000 |
: S 400 >
pe: 2,000
; 200
4 1,000 al
0 0
: Coal Mine Drainage Acid Mine Drainage Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15
Generation — Cumulative (1989-2014) Total Life Cycle Water Use
600 1600
| 1400
; 500
ie 1200
ong *% é
10 . no
es = 1000
ES s
: 2 300 aH 800
ee 2 a =
E E 600
S 200
: 400
| : 100 200
ag
0 less than 1% cooling water 0
Cooling Water Evaporative losses Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

W@e Case 24
30 GBB Case 26
MMH Case 22
WBE Case 23
Ms Case 15
35
40

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5= 16

Figure 5-3 Land Use—Median Load Forecast

Total Land Used — Generation — Cumulative (1989-2014)

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000 7%

4,000

2,000

0
Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 2

Total Land Used — Life Cycle — Cumulative (1989-2014)

80,000

-
70,000 ;
60,000 i
50,000 : !
40,000 :
30,000 :
20,000 2
10,000 | :

z |

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5-11

Ci (Millions)

3.50

3.00

2.50

Figure 5-4 Atmospheric Emissions (Radionuclides)-Median Load Forecast

Cumulative (1989 — 2014)

Tritium

Cumulative (1989 — 2014)

Noble Gases

lodine 131

Particulates

4.47x109
2.5x109

200
180
160
140

120
100

Ci (Thousands)

11.49
4.20

0.14

Mean Yearly Values

Tritium DEL

Noble Gas DEL

Tritium Noble Gases
Mean Yearly Values
Particule DEL
lodine DEL
Fé

‘

lodine 131 Particulates

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23
Case 15

5-12

option. Generation-related land displacement
is the highest among all the Cases. This higher
_ land use is related to a comparatively higher |

- need for additional new generating sites and |

' associated transmission. Normalized land use

declines throughout the planning period, :

- (Figure 5-8).

. Emissions /Effluents /Wastes

: Heaviest reliance on nuclear generation

: results in this Case having the lowest acid gas
(SO, + NOx), COs, particulate and trace ele- :
ment emissions among the alternative Cases
(Figure 5-5). Normalized emissions for these :

"parameters decrease steadily over the planning :

- period (Figure 5-9).

It should be noted, however, that all Cases :
meet current regulatory limits for SO, NOx :
2 and total acid gas (SO) + NOx) emissions, |
: for the median load and upper load forecasts, :
- Socio-Economic Effects

over the study period.

However, since acid gas emissions for this
_ Case are the lowest among the alternative Cases, _

_ there is additional margin with respect to reg-

ulatory limits (Figure 5-5).

Aquatic effluent levels (including thermal :
_ discharges) are marginally higher for Case

- 23 than for the other Cases (Figure 5-6).

Normalized values increase slightly over the :

study period (Figure 5-9).

Total waste production’ levels are lowest
: for this Case, although radioactive wastes
- are higher [10-23 %] than all other Cases :

: (Figure 5-7). Normalized, total waste production

_ rates decrease for this Case over the study

: period (Figure 5-9).
_ High waste production in all Cases reflects

_ the continued system reliance on existing gen- _

~ eration sources (particularly older fossil units)

during the study period. The addition of Flue :

be 13

Gas Desulphurization and increased use of :
low-sulphur coal at existing coal-fired stations |

add significantly to waste inventories in this —

period. Opportunities to reduce this growing |

cling and reuse programs (e.g., commit to |

Annual radionuclide emission levels for :

| all Cases (Figure 5-4) remain well within reg-

(i.e., 1% of Derived Emission Limits). Total
radionuclide emissions and effluents are higher
[10-23 %] than for other Cases due to greater :

_ waste inventory through aggressive waste recy-

_ production of FGD gypsum) are being pursued. {

_ ulatory requirements and corporate targets

dependence on new nuclear units. Normalized =

radionuclide emissions/effluents increase :

slightly over the study period (Figure 5-9). |

5.2.1.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Regional Employment

Case 23, with the highest nuclear component, , :
_ will have a high level of employment in the

construction and operation of four new stations. ;

These projects will require a highly skilled

: workforce over a 16-18 year construction period. :
The level of local and regional employment :
_ will depend on the availability of skilled workers

and initiatives for local hiring and training. : _

Significant indirect employment will also :

be created in businesses supplying the pro-

out the area.

Regional Economic Development
- Inorder to maximize the regional development
: benefits of this Case, special initiatives will :
likely be required in most areas. These initiatives

- could include agreements with trade unions —

: jectand in the retail and service sectors through- |

and the provincial and federal governments
to increase local hiring, provide training, or :
to assist local businesses in competing for project :
: contracts. Construction camps, if required, :
| may reduce opportunities for investment and
indirect employment in surrounding commu- :
nities. However, some benefits will result from
the building, operation, and purchasing asso-

: ciated with such camps.

Nuclear projects provide the opportu- |
: nity for industrial development using waste -

: heat energy.

E Local Community Impacts

With this Case, there will be a large influx of
project workers and others required for indirect
employment in retail, service and project-related
businesses. This influx will likely require the
expansion of municipal facilities and services. :
| Population growth and expansion of facilities

: and services may be considered benefits in

communities seeking economic growth and 2
diversification. However, the pace and timing
of change may result in adverse effects in some :
areas. A comprehensive community impact
management program, supported by a com- :
munity impact agreement, will be undertaken :
- Distribution of Risks and Benefits
: Those who perceive that they are exposed to 7

- to mitigate any adverse impacts.
| Societal Considerations

- Social Acceptance

The social acceptance of the Cases will depend :
: on the choice and mix of technologies and :
; will be a function of perceived health and :
ts safety risks and the public’s familiarity with

| : a particular technology.

: Special/Sensitive Groups

) _ The inclusion of four nuclear facilities in this —
: Case will be of particular concern to envi- |

ronmental and nuclear interests, The safety
of nuclear facilities and the management of :
nuclear waste will be the main concerns. Special
attention will have to be paid to issues such :
as employment and economic opportunities
for Native and other local people. Local pref-
erences and lifestyles will also be considered
in the construction and operation activities.

Lifestyle Impacts

Case 23 is unlikely to lead to significant changes |

in lifestyle for the majority of Ontarians.
- However, some people may choose to change |
- their lifestyle because of their perception of |

risk and in extreme cases this could prompt :
them to move to a new community. :

The lifestyle of residents in less developed
areas of the province may change because of
the influx of new residents, changing employ-
ment patterns (1.e., construction employment :

- ys. traditional occupations), increased availability

of goods and services, and changing municipal :
services. These changes can be positive or
negative and will be particularly significant :
for Native people who have followed a traditional

way of life.

_ risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from -
: transportation of nuclear materials, but do
- not perceive a compensating benefit, may con- re

sider that situation inequitable. Concerns about |
the sharing of risks and benefits from nuclear :
facilities may be raised by: those living near :
the site and those living away from that site;

: those living near nuclear material transportation
~ routes and those living away from those routes;
- and those concerned about future generations

having responsibility for long-term management —

of nuclear waste.

5-14

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23
Case 15

900
800

700

600

500

400

300

Figure 5-5 Atmospheric Emisssions (Conventional)—Median Load Forecast

S0,, NO,, Total Acid Gas — Cumulative (1989-2014)

—

Acid Gas

C02 Emissions — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Trace Elements — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Lil

Case 22 Case 23

Case 24 Case 26 Case 15

Mg (Thousands)

180

160

140
120

100

120

S0,, NOx, Total Acid Gas — Average Yearly Emissions

Acid Gas

CO, Average Yearly Emissions

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Particulate Emissions — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

5-15

Figure 5-6 Water Effluents—Median Load Forecast

Water Effluents Uranium Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014) Acid In Coal Mine Drainage — Cumulative (1989-2014)
0.25 12
0.20 ie
8 al
0.15
3 & 6
0.10
4
0.05 0)
0 0
Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15
Thermal Discharge
30
25
20
OG
i
Ss
S 15
8
S 10
(=
5
0

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Radionuclides — Gross & — Cumulative (1989-2014) Radionuclides Tritium — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Ci x106

Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15 Case 24 Case 26 Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 16

Figure 5-7 Waste Production—Median Load Forecast

Life Cycle Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24

Case 26

Case 22 Case 23 Case 15

Uranium Mining — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Case 24

Case 26

Case22 Case 23 Case 15

Fossil Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Radioactive Wastes — Cumulative (1989-2014)

Used Fuel Low Level Waste

MM Case 24
MB Case 26 73
H@ Case 22
WH Case 23

GM Case 15

5-17

5.2.2 Case 22
| 5.2.2.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Q Resource Use
iE Like Case 23, Case 22 is characterized by :
significant reliance on nuclear generation, :
and, as such, has significantly lower consumption :
of non-renewable coal, oil and gas resources
ig (Figure 5-1). Uranium use is marginally higher :
than for Case 15 and the two fossil Cases, but :
| slightly less [5%] than for Case 23. Normalized :
coal use decreases over the study period
(Figure 5-10), while natural gas and oil use
are negligible. Uranium use increases slightly
| during the planning period.
Life cycle water use (Figure 5-2) for this
Case is similar to that of all other alternative
Cases. However, cooling water requirements :
are marginally higher [3-10%] than those for :
| Case 15 and the two fossil Cases, but only :
: slightly less [2%] than the.requirements for :
Case 23. The higher requirements of Cases 2
22 and 23 reflect the higher cooling water :
flows associated with nuclear generation, versus 2
fossil generating stations. Normalized water :
use decreases slightly over the planning period :
= (Figure 5-10). :
Life cycle land displacement (Figure 5-3) :
associated with this Case is lower than Case :
15 and the two fossil Cases, reflecting lower :
mining and waste disposal requirements for :
| : the nuclear option. Generation-related land :
| displacement, excluding mining, is lowest among :
| all Cases, including Case 23. Case 22’s better :
| rating, in comparison to Case 23, is related :
to reduced demand for new generating sites
| and associated transmission. Normalized land :
: use declines throughout the planning period, :
(Figure 5-10). :

- Emissions /Effluents /Wastes
Reliance on nuclear generation results in this :
Case having relatively low acid gas, COs, par- :
: ticulate and trace element emissions (Figure :
: 5-5). Normalized emissions for these parameters :

decrease steadily over the planning period |
(Figure 5-11). :

As noted earlier, all Cases meet regulatory
limits for SOs, NOx and total acid gas (SO
+ NOx) emissions, for the median load and
upper load forecasts, over the study period :
(Figure 5-5). However, since acid gas emissions :

: for Case 22 are comparatively low, there is :

significant margin with respect to current reg-
ulatory limits.

Aquatic effluent levels (Figure 5-6) are 2
slightly less [1%] than for Case 23 and slightly ©
higher [2-6 % ] than those for the other remain- :
ing Cases. Like Case 23, normalized water :
use decreases slightly over the planning period :
(Figure 5-10). :

Total waste production levels (Figure 5-7) 2
are slightly higher than Case 23, but significantly ?
less than those for the remaining three Cases, :
particularly fossil-based Cases. Normalized waste
production decreases over the planning period :
(Figure 5-11). :

Annual radionuclide emission levels for :
all Cases remain well within regulatory require- 2
ments and corporate targets (ie., 1% of Derived :
Emission Limits). Total radionuclide emis- |
sions/effluents and radioactive waste production :
are marginally higher for Case 22, versus all :
other Cases except Case 23, due to dependence :
on new nuclear units. Normalized radionuclide :
emissions/effluents and wastes increase over :

the study period (Figure 5-11).

5-18

Soe

2 A cl a Seale Pet

HA/TWh

Figure 5-8 Case 23—-Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Oil

GI/TWh x 10 :
Oo ~ TS; ee) o

89-90. 91-92 93 94 95 96 97-98 990.1 2 34 5 6 7 89 WN DM
Year

Land Use*

800

500 Leg Sh SS ;
400
300
200
100 3
0 T T

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Gm3/TWh

Millions m3 / TWh

400

200

hire ieta

aise ais

ae
Phd

Gas

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4567 89 11213 |

Note: No gas used for this case. |
7

Year 4
4

Uranium

Pe i]
°
oi See

89/90) 91) 92°93 94°95 9697 98:90 Oy 2eesi sdb Gey toed (Det Y io leat
Year

Water Use a

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 12345678 9 1011213 4:
Year a

* Includes all Ontario Hydro—owned property prior to 1989

5-19

Figure 5-9 Case 23—-Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water Radionuclide — Air
1200 2000
1800
1000
1600
800 1400
1200
ae
= 600 z 1000
(I >
© 800
400
600
200 400
200
0 0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96-97 9899012345 67 8 9 WN 12 B14 89 90 91 92 93 9495 969798990123 456789 NBM:
‘ Year : Vear ;
Air Emissions
2.5 —
S02
NOx
2.0 —
C02
= Acid Gas
= ———s
= 15 Trace
no
am
N
fa)
S 10
25
>
0.5
0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 1 23 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year
Total Waste Thermal Discharge
18 6000
16
5000
14
; Oey: 4000
i=
s 2e
e 10
= 2 3000
ole Ls} 3
é fs)
o> 6 2000
=
4
1000
2
0 0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990 1234567 8 9 011 2134:
Year Year :

| <Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
| 5 - 20

Gg/Twh

GI/TWH x10°5

HA/TWH

Figure 5-10 Case 22—Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97:98 990 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

120 _

100

800

700

Year
Oil
tae et ade at a LO le clon, wtteals ut aft ch; ohare) aah
89-90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Total Life Cycle Land Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Gm3/TWH

m3/TWH (Millions)

0.45
0.40
0.35

0.30

400

wo
a
o

w
So
Oo

nN
ol
Oo

ined
Oo
o

—_
o
Oo

os
o
—)

uo
o

89°90 91 92 93.94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 89 11112 13 4:
Year :

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.9798 9901234567 a ee
Year ;

Water Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 9901234567 89 WN ME
Year :

5 - 21

Figure 5-11 Case 22 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

1000
800
=5
= 600
5
400
200
0

89°90 91 92 93 9495 969798990123 45 67'8 9 011 1213-14
Year

Air Emissions

usd
o

=
uo

al
Oo

Gg/TWh (CO7_Tg/TWh)

ad
wo

89 90.91 92 93 94 95.96.9798 990 123 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 11°12 13 14
Year

Total Waste

Mg/TWh
S

oOo

“Knit Vom ln do ht eG ad,” Lee tk me Ti 1 cee Tr
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98.990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

TJoules/TWh

Radionuclide — Air

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990123 4567 8 9 10111213 14 :
Year :

$09
Acid Gas
C02
NOx

Trace Elements

Thermal Discharge

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 12345678 9 10111213 4 :
Year :

5-22

| 5.2.2.2 Social Environmental Impacts
| Socio-Economic Effects

- Regional Employment

Gase™22; with its large nuclear component,
: will also have a high level of employment in :
: the construction and operation of three stations.
These projects will require a highly skilled
: workforce over a 10-12 year construction period.
: The level of local and regional employment
: will depend on the availability of skilled workers :
: and initiatives for local hiring and training. :
: Significant indirect employment could be cre- :

2 ated in businesses supplying the project and :

. in the retail and service sector.

Because of the smaller scale and shorter :
2 duration of construction with CTU and CTU/CC :
: projects, relatively less employment is generated :
: than for other facilities. There is also likely :

- to be limited indirect employment created.

- Regional Economic Development

: In order to maximize the regional development :
: benefits of most of these projects, special ini- :
tiatives will be required in most areas. These :
: initiatives could include agreements with trade :
: unions and the provincial and federal gov- :
: ernments to increase local hiring, to provide :
: training, or to assist local businesses in com- :
: peting for project contracts. However, the estab- :

- lishment of construction camps for any of :

_ these facilities may reduce opportunities for

- investment and indirect employment in sur- |
- rounding communities.Nuclear projects provide :

- the opportunity for industrial development :

- using waste heat energy.

The smaller scale and shorter duration |
- of construction with CTU and CTU/CC pro- |
- jects would provide little opportunity for |

- regional development. The exception would |

5 = 23

be alarge CTU/IGCC project. A phased con-
struction program may provide employment
opportunities over a longer period of time
: and therefore encourage additional regional

- economic development.

Local Community Impacts

The differences in local community impacts |

will depend on the type of generation facility,

the workforce size and related in-migration, ©

and the resultant municipal infrastructure |

requirements. Location of nuclear facilities 7

in less developed areas of the province will :
create significant effects. Even with initiatives |
to encourage local hiring and the use of a :

- construction camp, there would be an influx :

of project workers and employees in retail, ©

service and project-related businesses. This ©

influx would likely require the expansion of ©

municipal facilities and services. A compre- =

_ hensive community impact management pro- |

these effects.

: gram, supported by a community impact =

- agreement, will be undertaken to mitigate {

Local community impacts for projects in =

more developed areas would tend to be mod- :

erate because of the availability of a large local i

and regional workforce and the existing infras- |

tructure. Acommunity impact agreement will =

be undertaken to manage or mitigate adverse |

effects.

Local community impacts for CTU and

- CTU/CC projects are likely to be minor. Local :

impacts are therefore likely to be related to ©

construction effects such as increased traffic, ©

road damage and noise. In addition, if CTUs

_ are built and converted to CC in stages, resulting —
~ in lower peak construction activity, then the d
effects on communities may be lessened. There =
is likely to be little or no in-migration of project :

_ workers. However, there may be pressure on
_ temporary accommodation facilities if project

| workers commute. Impact agreements to offset

specific project effects may be required.
; Societal Considerations

| Social Acceptance

) The social acceptance of Case 22, with its reliance
on nuclear generation, will also be influenced ;
by the public’s perception of risk. The fossil :

components of this Case are likely to be more

socially acceptable if they are converted to

CC units.

Special/Sensitive Groups

The inclusion of three nuclear facilities in :
this Case will be of particular concern to envi- :
ronmental and nuclear interests. The safety
of nuclear facilities and the management of
nuclear waste will be the main focus of concern. :
Project EAs will deal with site specific effects
and will address in detail issues such as employ- :

ment and economic opportunities for Native
and other local people.

Fossil components of Case 22, although
less than with other alternatives, are likely :
to be of concern to environmentalandrecre- 5.2.3 Case 15
ation interests and to resource industries, such :
as agriculture and forestry, potentially affected :
by acid and greenhouse gases and ozone levels.
The increased reliance on gas or oil for CTUs, :
particularly if they are not converted to CC
and IGCC, will be of concern to environmental, :
: 5.2.3.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

conservation, and energy interest groups.

Lifestyle Impacts

Case 22 is unlikely to lead to significant changes :
in lifestyle for the majority of Ontarians. |
However, some people may choose to change -

- their lifestyle because of their perception of
_ risk and in extreme instances this could prompt _

them to move to a new community.
The lifestyle of residents in smaller com- :

- munities would likely change with the influx _
; of new residents, changing employment pat-
: terns (ie., construction employment vs. tra- :

- ditional occupations), increased availability :

of goods and services, and changing munici- |
pal services. These changes can be positive |
or negative and will be particularly significant :

- for Native people who have followed a tradi-

tional way of life.

Distribution of Risks and Benefits
- Those who perceive that they are exposed to |

risks, but who do not receive a compensating
benefit, may consider that situation inequitable. :
Concerns about the sharing of risks and benefits
from nuclear facilities may be raised by: those :
living near a site and those living away from :
that site; those living near nuclear material :
transportation routes and those living away :

- from those routes; and those concerned about |
' future generations having responsibility for :

long-term management of nuclear waste.

Case 15 represents a “middle ground” among
the alternative Cases, with intermediate levels :
of resource use and emissions/effluents and
waste production anda balancing of the social
effects of nuclear and fossil projects. :

- Resource Use

Non-renewable resource use is slightly higher 2
than in the nuclear-based Cases and lower |

than in the fossil-based Cases (Figure 5-1). :

- Normalized coal use declines over time, while |

5. - 24

Figure 5-12 Case 15 -— Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

Gg/TWh
al no ww > CUS - a | oc
oO (— 2 oe — Wes le, , — oe —~ ee — Se — }

Gm3/TWh

HA/TWh

89.90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 990 123 4.5 6 7 8B 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Gas

0.35

0.30
0.25 1
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 28 14
Year

Land Use

800

700
600
500
400
300
200
100

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 97 98.990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

GI/TWh

Millions m3/TWh

Oil

400 7

350

300

250

Dat eee ae me

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 :
Year ;

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Water Use

400

350

250

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12 13 14
Year ;

5 = 25

: ciated transmission, but shows a decline by |
the year 2014. |
: Life cycle water use is only slightly higher :
| [2 %] than in the fossil-based Cases and slightly
lower [1-2%] than in the two nuclear-based

, Regional Employment

use of oil and gas is minimal until the latter :
: part of the study period (Figure 5-12). Uranium :
use increases slightly over the study period :
"(Figure 5-12).
: Total life cycle land use is noticeably less
; [4-16%] than for the fossil-based Cases and
marginally higher [5-7%] than for the two
Q nuclear-based Cases. Normalized land use fluctu- :
: ates throughout the study period (Figure 5-12)
: in response to additions of new sites and asso-

: Cases. Normalized water use (Figure 5-12)
: declines slightly over the study period.

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes

; higher than in the nuclear-based Cases and |

: Acid gas emissions (SO, NOx) are marginally

, marginally lower than in those for fossil based :
Cases (Figure 5-5). Differences in COs, par-
ticulate and trace element emissions tend to
| be more significant. Normalized atmospheric :
| emissions decline steadily over the study period
(Figure 5-13). |
t Aquatic effluents, primarily thermal dis-
E charge from generation (Figure 5-6), are slightly :
i lower [2-3 %] than for nuclear-based Cases :
: and slightly [1-4%] higher than for fossil-based :
F Cases. Effluents from uranium mining and :
coal mining are intermediate, relative to nuclear :
j and fossil based Cases. Normalized effluent
i levels increase slightly over the planning period :
(Figure 5.13). |
Radionuclide emissions/ effluents (Figures
5-4 and 5-6) are marginally [5-9%] lower than :
the nuclear-based Cases and noticeably higher :
: : also provide a significant boost to a regional

[4-14 %] than for fossil-based Cases. Normalized
radionuclide values increase slightly over the. 2
period (Figure 5-13).

Life cycle waste production (Figure 5-7)
is higher [10-19%] than for the two nuclear-
based Cases and lower [8-33%] than the fossil-

based Cases. Significant differences in :

fossil-derived wastes are apparent. Normalized :

: waste production (Figure 5-13) declines over

the study period.

: 5.2.3.2 Social Environment Impacts

Socio-Economic Effects

: Case 15 provides an intermediate level of |
employment in comparison to the alternative
Cases. Location ofa facility in a less well-devel-

oped area of the province would likely result
in more indirect employment because of the 7
development of local businesses, both project-
related and in the retail and service sector. :

: A facility located in more densely populated 2

areas of the province would be able to draw |

: mainly ona local and commuting workforce,
: while a station in more remote and less pop-

ulated areas would require the in-migration —
of project and other workers.

Both IGCC and nuclear developments will
create significant employment benefits. CTU :
projects will provide only limited employment. :

Regional Economic Development
The nuclear facilities in Case 15 would provide |

: the opportunity for significant regional devel- 7

opment benefits. |
Case 15 includes the development of an
IGCC facility. A large scale IGCC plant would ©

- economy.

5 - 26

Ci/TWh (Thousands)

Tg/TWh)

Gg/TWh (C02

Mg/TWh (Thousands)

Figure 5-13 Case 15—-Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98.990 123 4 5 6 7 BY 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Air Emissions

2.5

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B Y 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Total Waste

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Ci/TWh
2
fo)

TJoules/TWh

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Radionuclide — Air

* C09

89.90.91 92°93 94 95 96:97:98 990 1234 5 67 89 1111213 4:
Year :

S02.
Acid Gas

Trace

Thermal Discharge

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 1234567 8 9 011213 he
Year :

5 - 27

= project could require about twice as many |

‘ in the potential for moderate community |
: impacts depending on where it is located. A |
- community impact agreement would be |

Case 15 also provides the opportunity for

heat-energy developmentin conjunction with |

the operation of nuclear facilities.

_ be required to maximize regional development _
_ benefits.

Local Community Impacts

The main potential for community impacts |
from the development of nuclear facilities
will be areas of the province which have a
less well-developed community infrastructure
to support the in-migration of workers and
their families and the growth in the retail
and service sector. A comprehensive community
impact management program, supported by
a community impact agreement, will be under-

taken to mitigate these effects.
Local community impacts for projects in

more developed areas would tend to be mod-
erate because of the availability of a large local
and regional workforce and the existing com-
| Lifestyle Impacts

munity infrastructure. A community impact :

agreement will be undertaken to deal with |

adverse effects.

: person-years of employmentasa CTU, resulting

- undertaken to manage effects.

- Societal Considerations

- Social Acceptance

The social acceptance of Case 15 will be
influenced by its nuclear component. However,
the mix of technologies in this Case may enhance
its social acceptability. IGCC facilities are likely
people with a traditional way of life.

- to be favourably received asa fossil alternative

because of the reduction in emissions.

Asin other Cases, special initiatives would : Special/Sensitive Groups

The development of nuclear facilities in Case

: 15 will be of concern to environmental and |
: nuclear energy interests. Again, key issues will
be nuclear safety and the management of

nuclear waste.

Development in the North would require
special attention to the interests of Native ;
and other northern residents, particularly with 2
respect to local employment and regional eco-
nomic development. :

Fossil components of Case 15 may be of
concern to environmental and recreational :

interests and resource industries potentially :

affected by acid and greenhouse gases and 2
: ozone levels. An IGCC facility will likely be :

more acceptable than a conventional steam |
cycle facility in this regard.

Implementation of Case 15 will not likely result :

in significant changes in lifestyle for the majority

Case 15 includes an IGCC facility. An IGCC of Ontarians. However, those in the vicinity

of nuclear facilities and those particularly |
concerned about nuclear safety may expe-
rience a change in their daily lives or perception :
of their community because of their percep-
tion of risk.

The lifestyle of residents in smaller, more

remote communities is likely to change. These -
: changes will result from the influx of new
_ residents, changing employment patterns —

- (ie. construction employments. traditional -

occupations), increased availability of goods :
and services, and changing municipal services. :
These changes can be positive or negative
and will be particularly significant for Native

5 - 28

GI/TWh x10°5

HA/TWh

Figure 5-14 Case 24-Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

800

700

Coal

Gm3/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 9697 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Oil

eet, = 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Land Use

400

350

300

250

200

(Millions) m3/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 B Y 10 11 12 13 14
Year

Gas

a =. 4

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98:99 0 1 2 3 45 6 Teonad 10111213 4:
Year :

Uranium

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96:97 98990 12345678 9 101112 13 43
Year d

Water Use

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4567 89 WN:
Year :

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5= 29

|
|

: residents.
Fe
: Distribution of Risks and Benefits

: concerns about the equity of the exposure

| transportation, but who do not receive a com-
: pensating benefit, may consider the situation
! : inequitable. Concerns about the sharing of :

risks and benefits among current and future
generations may be raised in relation to the

: long-term management of nuclear waste and

in relation to reduction in the reserves of
: fossil resources and the long-term effects of :

. greenhouse gases.
i 5.2.4 Case 24
5.2.4.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

- Resource Use

: This Case has the second highest use of coal, :
, oiland gas resources among the Cases (Figure
5-1). Uranium use is second lowest. Normalized
: coal use fluctuates over time (Figure 5-14) :
but is slightly lower in 2014 than it was at the :
- gures 5-4 and 5-6) are lower [9-23%] than

start of the planning period. Normalized oil

: and gas use increase significantly in the latter :
- but slightly higher [4%] than in Case 26. :
: Normalized values do not change significantly

: part of the planning period.
Life cycle land requirements (Figure 5-3)

| for this Case are higher, compared to all other
Cases except Case 26. Normalized land require-
ments vary throughout the planning period,
responding mainly to additions of new sites
and associated transmission, but do not change :

| markedly by 2014.

Development of an IGCC facility may result |
| : in modest changes to the lifestyle of surrounding

+ of communities or groups to nuclear risks. |
: Those who perceive that they are exposed to
: risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from |

Life cycle water use is less than for all Cases :
except Case 26 and declines over the planning |

period (Figure 5-14).

: Emissions/Effluents /Wastes
. As with other Cases, Case 15 may give rise to -

Emissions/ effluents and waste production levels :

: for Case 24 are higher than those experienced :

in all other Cases except Case 26. Except under :
the lower load forecast, CO, emissions for :
this Case cannot meet a 20% reduction, if ,
required by 2005 (Figure 5-5). Normalized :
acid gas emissions (Figure 5-15) decline over
time. However COs, emissions increase slightly
over the planning period. :

Life cycle waste production (Figure 5-7)

is significantly higher than in all Cases except :

Case 26. The increased reliance on coal-fired |
generation significantly inflates the amount :

: of ash/FGD wastes produced. Normalized waste :
- production increases slightly over the planning —
: period (Figure 5-15). :

Aquatic effluents (Figure 5-6) related to |

2 generation for Case 24 are marginally lower :
: than for all Cases except Case 26. Uranium
- mining and coal mining effluents for this Case |

are lower and higher, respectively, than in |
all Cases except Case 26. Normalized effluent 2
levels decline only slightly over the study period 2
(Figure 5-5). 2

Radionuclide emissions/effluents (Fi- :

in the Cases with additional nuclear generation, -

over the planning period, Figure 5-15.

5 - 30

Figure 5-15 Case 24 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide — Water

1800
1600
1400
oO
3 1200
o
a
3 < 1000
<=
Ee
= 2 800
Pa) 600
400
200
0 Aleaalt hae cathe call tea le eile alae taal cto mea erie oii worl tag cane ae aE) 0
89/906 91 $2.93: 94 95-96 97 98-99 0 1. 273-4 5 Ge 7 .8¢ 9-10 11 12 13 14
Year
Air Emissions
25
2.0
==
= 15
=
aly
(o>)
©
= 1.0
=
oO
0.5
0
89 90 91 92 93 94:95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year
Total Waste
18 6000
16
5000
14
12 4000
=
= 10 e
= % 3000
mo 4
o 8 S
2
§ 2000
4
1000
2

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 45 67 8 9 10011 12 13 14
Year

Radionuclide — Air

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 99012345678 9 011
Year

S07
Acid Gas

COz

NOx

Trace

Thermal Discharge

12 13 14:

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97:98. 9901234567 89 1011 12139 We

Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5-31

' oped areas of the province where special -
_ initiatives will be required to realize the regional |

5.2.4.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Socio-Economic Effects

' Regional Employment
Case 24 will provide a higher level of employ-
ment than Case 26, which has a greater emphasis
: on fossil generation. However, it will result :
in less employment than that for the other
~ Cases previously discussed. A conventional
coal facility creates more employment in con-
- struction and operation than CTU/CC/IGCC :
: facilities of comparable size and will therefore
' create a significant employment benefit.
: Location of generation facilities in less devel-
: oped areas of the province would likely result :
in more indirect employment, both project-

: related and in retail and service business.

- Regional Economic Development
. Aswith other Cases, the major regional devel-

» opment opportunities will occur in less devel- -

_ development benefit.

A conventional coal facility offers a somewhat |

: greater regional development opportunity than

- acomparable CTU/CC/IGCC facility because

- ofitslarger scale, longer construction schedule
and higher employment requirements. While :
a conventional coal facility could provide a :
significant boost to the regional economy, the
phased construction of the IGCC facilities 2

" may sustain the regional development oppor- |

" tunity over a longer period.

: Local Community Impacts

: The main potential for community impacts -

: will occur as a result of the influx of project -
: and other workers, which will in turn require -

* expansion of municipal services and facilities.

A comprehensive community impact manage- :
ment program, supported by a community :
impact agreement, will be undertaken to mit- :
: igate these effects.

Case 24 includes an IGCC facility. Even :
allowing for the workers required for coal :
and waste handling facilities, an IGCC project :
would have more moderate community effects :
than a CSC. A community impact agreement

: would be undertaken.

Societal Considerations

Social Acceptance
Because of its nuclear component, the social
acceptance of this Case will be influenced by :
perceptions of risk. Issues such as safety and

: waste management will affect social acceptability.

The social acceptance of this Case will also :

be influenced by the public’s perception of 7

conventional coal generation, particularly their
perception of acid gas and greenhouse effects. :
The IGCC component may be perceived as :
cleaner and therefore may be more socially

| acceptable.

Special/Sensitive Groups

- The inclusion of nuclear facilities in Case 24 :

will be of concern to environmental and nuclear :
energy interests. Again, key issues will be safety :
and the management of nuclear waste. ?

Development in the north would require :
special attention to the interests of Native :

and other northern residents, particularly with

: respect to local employment and regional eco-

- nomic development.

Fossil components of Case 24 will be of 7
concern to environmental and recreational :
interests and to resource industries potentially :
affected by acid rain, greenhouse gases and

ozone levels.

5 - 32

Figure 5-16 Case 26 — Resource Use Indices—Median Load Forecast

Coal

120 0.8

100
0.6

80
0.5
60 : 0.4
0.3

40
0.2
20 0.1
0 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Gg/TWh
Gm3/TWh

Oil

800 0.016

700 0.014
600 0.012
500 0.010
=
= 0.008
eS
300 0.006
200 0.004
100 0.002
0 0

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year

GI/TWh x 105
=
Ss

Land Use

HA/TWh
> nN w > ao fop) ~
oO oO o o oOo i! oO
Co oOo to} o oOo Cc So
Millions m3/TWh
Gila pepe Sales SEES
oOo oO oOo &. oOo oO oOo

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 33

99 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990123 45678 9 ON 12134:
Year

Uranium

89 90.91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 1234567 89 WIZ BME

Water Use

89.90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798 9901234567 89 1011 12:13 4 E
Year :

+ significant for Native people with a traditional

- Lifestyle Impacts
4 Implementation of Case 24 will not likely result :
in significant changes in lifestyle for the majority :
- of Ontarians. However, those in the vicinity 2
: of nuclear facilities and those particularly con-
cerned about nuclear safety may experience
; a change in their daily lives or in the perception :
| of their community because of their perception :
: of risk.
The lifestyle of residents in less developed :
: communities could be changed asa result of
the in-migration of new residents, changing
: employment patterns, increased availabi- :
lity of goods and services, and changing
; municipal services. These changes can be pos- :
itive or negative and will be particularly

way of life.

4 Distribution of Risks and Benefits

+ As with other Cases, Case 24 may give rise to :

+ of communities or groups to nuclear risks.

= pensating benefit, may consider the situation —

‘ concerns about the equity of the exposure -

- Those who perceive that they are exposed to :
' risks at any stage of the fuel cycle or from :
= transportation, but who do notreceive acom- ~

inequitable. Concerns about the sharing of :
risks and benefits among current and future :
generations may be raised in relation to the :
long-term management of nuclear waste, and * Emissions /Effluents/Wastes
in relation to reductions in the reserves of
fossil resources and the long-term effects of :
: higher than for the other Cases (Figure 5-5). ;
: Normalized acid gas emissions decline until
about 2000 and then remain stable to the end :
of the planning period (Figure 5-17). CO,

- greenhouse gases.

5.2.5 Case 26

5.2.5.1 Natural Environmental Impacts

Resource Use

The fossil fuel dominance in this Case con-

tributes to it having the highest level of non- :
renewable resource use (Figure 5-1). Coal :

_ use increases steadily over the planning period

(Figure 5-16), while oil and gas.use increase :
drastically in the latter part of the planning
period. Uranium use is lowest among Cases
and normalized use declines over the planning :
period (Figure 5-16). :

Life cycle land use requirements (Fi-
gure 5-3) are highest of all Cases, mainly :
due to higher comparative land requirements :

_ related to mining and waste disposal activities. -
_ As with all other Cases, normalized land use |
varies significantly over time.in response to -

site and transmission additions. However, land :
use requirements decrease by the end of the :
planning period (Figure 5-16). :

Life cycle water use is lowest for Case 26, :
reflecting the lower cooling water requirements
of fossil generation, versus nuclear generation, :
and lower uranium mining activity. Normalized :
water use values decrease over the course of 2
the planning period (Figure 5-16). :

Heaviest reliance on fossil-based generation :
results in acid gas emissions for Case 26 being |

: emissions (Figure 5-5) are highest for this :

5 - 34

Figure 5-17 Case 26 — Emission/Effluent/Waste Indices—Median Load Forecast

Radionuclide—Water

1000 1800
900 1600
aii
800 1400
109 1200
600
<= ; < 1000
e 500 =
3S < 800
400
600
300 4
400
200 4
100 200
0 0
89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96.97 98990123 45 67 8 9 011 12 2B 14
Year
Air Emissions
25
2.0
a
E is
Lrg
N
oO
S
= 1.0
o
oO
0.5
0
89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1M 1213 14
Year
Total waste
25 6000
5000
20
. 4000
a= 15 s
= % 3000
— Ss
10 | s
—
2000
54 1000
0 =) Pe GOW er Saabs Gans aa ot 0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Radionuclide—Air

89 90.91 92°93 94 95.96 97 98°99 0-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-12 8 ie
Year

S09
ACID GAS
CO
NOx
TRACE

Thermal Discharge

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Pee PE IE Te A a Te ee ee ee ee ee ee) Se a a ee PR ape Pee ae

Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 35

as ee ee

sion levels in 2005 cannot be met by this Case
“under any of the load forecasts. Normalized
_ CO, emissions increase slightly over the planning
period (Figure 5-17).

gure 5-6), while uranium and coal mining

eration. Normalized values decline over the
planning period (Figure 5-17).

Waste production levels (Figure 5-7) are

duction increases over the planning period |

(Figure 5-17).
|
(5.2.5.2 Social Environmental Impacts

Socio Economic Effects

Regional Employment

Case 26 is likely to create the least construction :
‘employment of the alternative Cases. IGCC :
plants create about one third less employment
than nuclear plants of equivalent size. The
employment created by conventional coal facil- :
‘ities will be important particularly in areas
where there are higher levels of unemployment. :
The level of local employment will depend
on special initiatives for local hiring and training.
In some areas of the province, even with local :
initiatives, there will likely be a need for in-

migration of project workers. Location of facil- :

ities in less developed areas would likely result :

in more indirect employment, in both project-

related and retail and service businesses.

Case. A proposed 20% reduction in CO, emis- |

Aquatic effluents from generation are |
the lowest among the alternative Cases (Fi-

effluents are lowest and highest respectively
among Cases. Normalized effluents decline :
Slightly over the study period, (Figure 5-17).
| Radionuclide emissions/effluents/wastes 2
_ (Figures 5-4, 5-6 and 5-7) are lowest for this
Case, due to the reduced use of nuclear gen-
- IGCC facility,

The development of a CTU/CC facility -

_ will create relatively few jobs. CTUs can be :
served by local and commuting workers and
are not likely to result in significant indirect
employment. |

Regional Economic Development

As with other Cases, the major regional devel- :

opment opportunities will occur in less devel-
oped areas of the province, where special
initiatives will be required to realize the regional
development benefit. Case 26 provides oppor-
tunities for regional development with two

conventional coal facilities in addition to an :

A conventional coal facility offers somewhat

_ greater regional development opportunity than —

highest for Case 26. Normalized waste pro- a comparable CTU/CC/IGCC facility because |

of its larger scale, longer construction schedule |

- and higher employment requirements. While
: a conventional coal facility could provide a
significant boost to the regional economy, the :
phased construction of IGCC facilities may :
sustain the regional development opportunity 7

- over a longer period.

Local Community Impacts

The influx of project and other workers with :
the development of a fossil station may require
expansion of municipal services and facilities
in some communities. A comprehensive com- :
munity impact management program, with a
community impact agreement, will be under-
taken to mitigate these effects. Relative to :
CSC facilities, fewer community impacts will :
occur with an IGCC in an area where there :
is access to a local and commuting workforce.
However, a community impact management
program may be needed to mitigate some of

these effects.

5 - 36

Figure 5-18 Atmospheric Emissions—Median Load Forecast

Total Acid Gas Production/Year Median

450 450
400 400
250 350
300 300
250 250

= ~ Acid Gas Emission Limits oS a
150 150
100 100

50 50

0 0

89 90 $1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 Ades A Bare BS) Wl 421344
Year

Total CO7 Production/Year Median

Proposed CO Emission Limit foOR

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Total Acid Gas Production/Year Upper

Acid Gas Emission Limits

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99012345678 9 ong 4
Year )

Total CO9 Production/Year Upper

89 90 91.92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 37

Seta nee eee eee ee

eer ees seessnersenes

Shy

Figure 5-18 Atmospheric Emissions—Median Load Forecast

Total NO, Production/year Median

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Total S02 Production/Year Median

450
400

$09 Emission Limit

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

Total NO, Production/Year Upper

100

NO, Protocol Target

89 90 91°92 93 94°95 96 97.98 990 123 4 5 6 7 B92:
Year :

Total SO Production/Year Upper

450
400

250

$09 Emission Limit

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 989901234567 8 9 1011 12:13 14 :
Year :

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

5 - 38

Table 5-3 Siting Requirements for Load Growth Cases

Load Forecast Case 23
Existing Sites Used:

Lower 2
Median 1
Upper 4
New Sites Used:

Lower 2
Median 3
Upper 4
Total Sites Used:

Lower 4
Median 4
Upper 8

Number of Illustrative Sites Used

Case 29

Case.15 Case 24 Case 26
2 4 4 4
4 5 5 5
7 8 8 8
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
3 5 5 5
6 7 Ii 7
10 11 11 11

: Societal Considerations

: Social Acceptance

: The social acceptance of Case 26 will be

- influenced by public perception of the risks :
associated with the use of fossil technologies :
and the appropriateness of using finite fossil :

- resources for energy production. The use of |

2 scrubbers and IGCC technology may raise social

2 acceptability, but this could be offset by green- :

- house concerns.

? Special/Sensitive Groups

- The exclusive reliance on fossil fuels for new

: supply in Case 26 will be of concern to envi- :

3 ronmental and recreational interests, and

- resource industries potentially affected by acid

- rain, greenhouse gases and ozone levels. The :

- increased reliance on gas or oil for CTUs,

5 - 39

- particularly if they are not converted to CC
and IGCCG, will be an issue for environmental,
_ conservation, and energy interests who object

~ to the use of gas and oil for electricity generation. —

Development of a conventional coal facility
in a northern area of the province will be of -
concern because of the potential impacts on

Native and other northern residents. Local

: employment and regional development will

be of particular concern.

: Lifestyle Impacts
: The main lifestyle impact of Case 26 will occur
2 in less developed areas of the province, with

the influx of new residents, changing employ-

- ment, increased availability of goods and ser-
- vices, and changing municipal services. These

changes can be positive or negative, and will

: be particularly significant for Native people

: with a traditional way of life.

{ tions used in this analysis could significantly |

: implications

Distribution of Risks and Benefits
Common to all Cases, Case 26 may raise equity :
: concerns among those who have the risks of :
: the facility, but who do not receive any com- :
: pensating benefit. Concerns about the sharing
E of risk and benefits among current and future :
: generations may be raised in relation to reduc- :
F tions in the reserves of fossil resources, and
the long-term effects of acid gas and greenhouse

|) gases.

: CTUs at existing sites. As shown in Table 5.4, 3

this will result in significant increases in fossil
fuel use, particularly coal. There will also be :
noticeable increases in limestone consumed
and waste quantities produced, as a result of :
increased use of FGD facilities to keep emissions :
below specified acid gas emission limits. Heavier :

: reliance on CTUs in the upper load forecast :

produces a corresponding increase in atmo- |

spheric emissions of SO», NOx and CO». Under |

upper load growth, all Cases could have difficulty

5.3 Sensitivity Considerations
: Changes ina number of conditions or assump- |

: affect the environmental effects of the alter- :
native Cases. These include changes in load :
growth, assumed planning period, assumptions :
: related to facility siting and potential future
regulatory changes. Following is a discussion 2
of each of these considerations. :

- 5.3.1 Load Growth
: Achange in load growth will affect the timing, :
type, and amount of generation increments :
and number of sites for each Case (Table 5-3). :
Higher load growth would require that more :
generation be developed in a shorter time
FE period. Since certain supply options have long :
approval and construction lead times, the variety :
: of options available to meet an upper load :
, forecast situation may be significantly reduced, :
F particularly in the mid to late 1990s. The earliest :
E a new major supply facility can be in-service :
i is about 2001. Asa result, significantly greater
E quantities of shorter lead-time fossil-based :
| : generation will have to be utilized. Developing 2
more generation, more quickly will also have

on resource

> emissions/effluents, waste production and socio-
- economic conditions. To deal with upper load, -
‘ most Cases include significant quantities of —

use, |

: meeting proposed limits for NOx and CO, :

(Figure 5.18). Future regulations for water :
effluents, waste production or land use, are :
heading toward azero discharge or maximum
re-use philosophy. Compliance under upper :
load growth would be much more difficult

: and costly.

Low load growth would delay and reduce :

: effects anticipated under the median load fore-

"Cast.

53.2 Planning Period

Since a significant proportion of new generation
is added in all Cases in the period after 2000, -
the timeframe for the analysis (to 2014) may |

- understate the differences in environmental —

performance among the Cases. The effect of ;
generation added in the post 2010 period,
for example, will hardly be realized by the :
time the assumed planning period ends in 2
9014. :

To determine how plan performance might :
change over a longer planning period, pro- :
jections have been made for an additional :
25-year period to 2039. The projections assume
median load growth, and constant annual energy :
production, based on average energy production :
over the period 2010 to 2014. The projections 2
do not include new demand/supply options
required to meet any additional post-2014 needs. :

5 = 40

Table 5-4 Changes in Natural Environment Values: Median to Upper Load

Factor / Criterion
A. Resource Use
Non-Renewables: Fuel

1. Coal

2. Oil

3. Gas

4. Uranium
Non-Renewables: Other

1. Limestone (for FGD)
Water Use

1. Water (Generation Related)

2. Water (Life Cycle)
Land Use

1. Land (Generation Related)

2. Land (Life Cycle)
B.Emissions / Effluent / Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions

1. SO,

ZaNOY

3. Total Acid Gas (SO, + NO,)

4.C0,

5. Radionuclides

6. Trace Elements
Aquatic Effluents

1. Thermal Discharge

2. Radionuclides

3. Uranium Mining Effluent

4. Coal Mining Effluent
Wastes

1. Coal Ash

2. FGD Wastes

3. Used Nuclear Fuel

4. Low Level Radioactive Waste

5. Uranium Mine Tailings

“Note: Assumes Median Load Values = 1.00

1.71
1.90
21.00
1.05

3:39

1.10
1.07

1.16
1.22

0.92
1.83
1.09
1.78
1.06
1.87

ie
1.07
1.05
1.28

1.61
3.45
1.06
1.06
1.05

Case*

0.83
1.50
0.97
1.55
1.07
1.60

1.14
1.07
1.08
ea)

1.29
3.23
0.98
0.98
1.08

5-41

Weil abn eb oinit benny cv Winey p dine LasleeReaincen Hp ee Mpc sinsete vee eben decay paevec ache vareahies hese ktweyyce ree ee cise siding en dnle ¥ alpha wed

The performance of nuclear-based plans |

improves significantly with respect to non-

renewable (fossil fuel and limestone) resource
use, land use (related to mining and wastes), :
acid gas and CO, emissions and conventional
waste production. Performance declines with :
respect to cooling water use, radionuclide emis-
sion/effluent, uranium use /mining and radioac-

tive waste production.

The performance of fossil-based plans
improves with respect to cooling water use, :
uranium mining/use and radioactive waste :
production. Case performance declines notice- :
ably in terms of non-renewable fuel (fossil
fuel and limestone) use, land use (related to
: will be needed.

mining and wastes) , CO. emissions and ash/FGD

waste production. Slight increases occur in :
acid gas emissions. However, with controls :
assumed, these remain within prevailing emis-

sion limits.

Case 15 exhibits characteristics of both :
nuclear and fossil based plans, but at more

moderate levels.

5.3.3 Siting

Siting will determine the precise nature and :
magnitude of natural and social environmental :
effects associated with the development and
operation of generating facilities. Prudent :
siting can minimize problems, such as major :
land use conflicts, poor waterbody conditions, :
_and airshed use conflicts. Siting will also deter- :
mine the nature and extent of transmission :
_ incorporation requirements and related con- :
cerns. Site-specific concerns will be evaluated :
: munity facilities and services will largely

in detail during project EA studies.

As noted in Section 2.3, anumber of illus-
trative sites (Table 2.7) have been identified :
+ and incorporated in each Case to demonstrate :
‘ that technically feasible sites exist for the range :

; of supply options being proposed; to provide : provided in Table 5-6.

a basis for carrying out the environmental |

- review and to complete cost estimates. This

site context is particularly relevant when dis-
cussing the social implications of alternative :
Cases, especially regional development and :
local community aspects. :

Natural and social environmental impli- :
cations of the illustrative sites used in the :

: plan analysis are discussed more fully below.

Natural Environment
From a natural environment viewpoint, it
is not so critical when sites are developed, :
but how many - that is, what land will be re- :

quired and what transmission incorporation |

Although siting differences among Cases |
are not significant, certain characteristics of |

the reference sites could have natural envi- |

- ronment implications. While these would be |

more thoroughly dealt with in any project :
EAs for proposed facilities (developed sub- |

: sequent to this DSP review), highlighting poten- :

: tial concerns is useful.

Social Environment .
To adequately understand and address the :
social environmental impacts of individual :
projects, specific sites will have to be determined. :

Differences in socio-economic effects and :
societal considerations depend on the char-
acteristics of a particular site and its environs.
The presence of an appropriately skilled labour :
force, the adequacy of the municipal infras-
tructure, and the number and range of com- :

determine the magnitude and significance |
of the effects of the project. |
A summary of social and natural environ- |

mental considerations at candidate sites is :

5 - 42

Table 5-5 Comparison of Cumulative Effects at 2014 and 2039: Natural Environment

(Median Load)

Criterion Case
23 22 15 24 26
A. Resource Use 2014 2039 2014 2039 2014 2039 2014 2039 2014 2039 Units
Non-Renewables: Fuel
1. Coal 131.0 22.0 176.0 72.0 228.0 182.0 255.0 318.0 341.0 555.0. Tg
2. Oil 0.3 0.5 0.8 25 AGT, 75 2.4 10.0 35 15.0 Gl
3. Gas 0.0 0.0 30.0 148.0 252.0 1082.0 327.0 1450.0 519.02... 2318.0 Gms
4, Uranium 57.0 70.0 55.0 68.0 53.0 65.0 51.0 55.0 46.0 40.0 Gg
Non-Renewables: Other |
1. Limestone (for FGD) 2.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 42 0.0 5.7 75 10.8 22.5 Tg
Water Use
1. Water (Generation Related) 567.0 670.0 555.0 655.0 541.0 625.0 530.0 580.0 504.0 500.0 Gms
2. Water (Life Cycle) 1.57 12 1.55 1.68 1.54 1.65 1.51 1.6 1.50 £52 Tm
Land Use
1.Land (Generation Related) 122 42 15.3 3.0 15.4 14.1 15.5 24.2 15.8 43.1 Ha103

2.Land (Life Cycle) 59.0 0.02 60.0 0.02 63.0 0.30 66.0 0.70 72.0 1.4 Ha103
B. Emissions / Effluents / Wastes :

Atmospheric Emissions

1. $0, 2.0 0.8 2.6 i, 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.9 BZ. 3:2 Tg
2. NOx 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 Tg
3. Total Acid Gas (SO,+ NO,) 25 0.9 3.20% 2 sag 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.2 44 Tg
4. CO, 325.0 130.0 419.0 238.0 523.0 455.0 590.0 792.0 815.0 1455.0 Tg
5. Radionuclides 15 9.8 1.2 8.8 6.9 8.0 6.8 7.0 6.0 5.0 Cie106
6. Trace Elements 17.0 3.0 23.0 10.0 30.0 25.0 34.0 46.0 48.0 85.0 Gg
Aquatic Effluents
1. Thermal Discharge 24.7 8.0 24.3 78 24.0 75 23.7 2 23.0 6.8 Tjo103
2. Radionuclides AA 55 42 5.2 41 48 4.0 42 3.6 3.0 Ci106
3. Uranium Mining Effluent 8.4 10.2 8.1 10.0 iby 9.0 75 8.0 6.8 6.0 Tg
4. Coal Mining Effluent 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.9 i2 13 22 Tg
Wastes
1. Coal Ash 12.5 1.9 16.8 7.0 22.4 19.8 24.7 SH 31.8 50.3 Tg
2. FGD Wastes 4.8 0.0 6.7 0.0 TBS, 0.0 10.8 14.2 20.6 42.2 Tg
3. Used Nuclear Fuel 5725 70.0 55.3 67.5 52.9 62.5 51.4 55.0 46.6 40.0 Gg
4. Low Level Radioactive Waste 23.0 215 22.1 27.5 21.2 25.0 20.6 22.5 18.6 175 Gg
5. Uranium Mine Tailings 36.2 44.2 34.9 42.8 33.3 39.2 32.4 34.8 29.3 25.8 Tg
6. Total Wastes 53.7 47.5 58.4 50.0 63.7 60.0 67.9 47.5 81.8 117.5 Tg

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 43

Table 5-6 Candidate Sites — Summary of Potential Considerations

Sites Generation Type Natural Social
Darlington — Nuclear — proposed dock at Canada Cement — readily available workforce
— plume dispersion implications — existing community concerns

(equity, health, emergency planning)

N. Channel — Nuclear — cooling water constraints — recreational interests (LaCloche
— Fossil (CSC/IGCC) — LaCloche Mtns. area Mitns., Manitoulin Is.)
— transmission incorporation — expressed interest in hosting new GS.

— site not owned by Hydro
— direct and indirect employment opportunities
Wesleyville — Fossil (CSC/IGCC) ~ = exclusion zone concerns — possible local concerns re: equity,
— Nuclear — on-site and adjacent terrestrial health, emergency planning, increased traffic

concerns (Eastern and Central marshes)

— Coal delivery dock required employment potential
— ash/FGD waste disposal
(space concerns)

Lakeview — Fossil (CTU/CC/IGCC*) — waste disposal — conflict with waterfront development

local air quality concerns objectives of Mississauga / Metro

— fugitive dust emissions perception problems (acceptance)

adjacent marina / parkland

Lambton — Fossil (CTU/CC/IGCC*) — ash/FGD waste disposal — regional economic stimulus
— fugitive dust emissions — employment stimulus
— increased traffic (St. Clair Parkway)
— possible Native issues
Lennox — Fossil (CTU/CC/IGCC*) — cooling water concerns — proximiy to heritage highway
— on-site wetland — economic stimulus
— coal storage — possible local concerns re: equity
- Nanticoke — Fossil (CTU/CC) — cooling water concerns — limited economic stimulus
; (Long Point Bay) — possible local concerns (cottagers)
Hearn — Fossil (CTU/CC) — outdoor storage of coal on-site — conflict with recreational development
— cooling water concerns objectives of Metro waterfront

(Toronto Harbour infilling)
Keith — Fossil (CTU/CC) — air quality concerns — limited economic stimulus
— cooling water concerns — land-use conflicts
— specialty crop agriculture
Bruce — Nuclear — potential for cumulative impacts — equity concerns
on wildlife habitat — employment potential

— potential impact on recreational lands

*/GCC after retirement of existing CSC Coal plant post-year 2000.

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 44

Table 5-7 Potential Regulatory Changes Affecting Demand/Supply Planning

in the Period 1989-2014

Air Emissions
1. CO, reductions
. NO, Prtocol — freeze at 1987 levels
. Regulation 308 Revision — emission limits/BACTEA
. Radionuclide dose limit reduction (ICRP)
. CFC Ban by 1992

. Indoor air quality standards tightened

ao on FF WwW NY

Aquatic Effluents
1. MISA limits and BACTEA (zero discharge)
2. ‘Mercury inreservoirs — tighter control
3. Radionuclide dose limit reduction (ICRP)
4. Water use charges for cooling water use
Wastes
1. PCB phase-out by 1993
2. Waste reduction targets (25% by 1992; 50% by 2000

Legend: CFC Chloroflourocarbons

MISA Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement

BACTEA Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable
PCB Polychlorinated Bi-Phenyls

<Evaluation of Differences Among Major Supply Cases - Chapter Five>
5 - 45

5.3.4 Regulatory Changes
Table 5.7 summarizes a number of regula- 7
tory initiatives that are likely to occur over :
the assumed study period. In general, regu-
lations are likely to become tighter and to
: stress control at source, and reduced
emissions/effluents/waste production. More
: emphasis will be placed on integrated envi-
ronmental management, whereby waste 7
(i.e., steam, water, solid wastes) recycling and :
re-use will be encouraged. Increased concern :
_ for large-scale, global issues (e.g., greenhouse
effect, ozone) is anticipated.
Arecent international NOx protocol, signed
by Canada, calls for a freeze of NOx emissions :
at 1987 levels. However, lower limits are being :
discussed. Figure 5-18 indicates all Cases can :
meeta 60 Gg/a limit. With upper load growth,
the 60 Gg/a limit could be difficult to meet
for all Cases.
Federal and provincial energy ministers
: have recommended that CO, emissions be :
reduced by 20% by 2005. A further reduction
to 50% by 2020 has also been discussed. The :
implications of achieving the 20% reduction
target are being examined by both a federal- 7
: provincial task force and by Ontario Hydro.
Figure 5-18 illustrates the ability of the Cases
to meet the 20% reduction target. Under median
load growth, only Cases 24 and 26 have problems
meeting the proposed 20% target. A 50% reduc-
tion target could be met only by Case 23.

Regulations governing point source atmo-
spheric emissions are likely to be tightened :
: during the planning period. Regulation 308 :
under the Environmental Protection Act is
currently being revised and is expected :
to significantly reduce allowable emissions. :
These proposed amendments emphasize at-
source control by best available control tech- :

: nology (BACT). The operation of existing plants |

could be significantly affected by this control
philosophy. |

The International Commission on Radiation :
Protection (ICRP) is contemplating a significant :
reduction (i.e., by up to a factor of ten) in :
recommended radiation standards. It is anti- :
cipated that Hydro’s self-imposed stricter stan- :
dards would permit even the highest nuclear :
Case.(Case 23) to meet these significantly tight- :
ened limits. :

Consumptive water use and the release of :

: toxins to the Great Lakes are becoming issues

of regulatory concern. Water use charges are :
being contemplated for large users in the Great :
Lakes basin. This could have significant financial :
implications for existing and proposed thermal :

- generating stations on the Great Lakes.

The Municipal Industrial Strategy for

: Abatement (MISA) Program in Ontario is |

focussing on achieving “virtual elimination” 2
of toxic discharges to the Great Lakes and |
connecting waterways. Regulations governing 2
Ontario Hydro’s waste water discharges are
being developed. As with Regulation 308, these 2
measures are stressing at-source control and 7
application of best available control technology. :
Complementary federal policy is moving toward :
“zero discharge” for industrial users in the :
Great Lakes Basin. Measures to optimize use :

: of water and reduce discharges to the aquatic
- environment will be an important consideration

: in implementing individual supply components :

under a preferred plan.

For all Cases, meeting a proposed provincial 7
target calling for a 50% reduction in solid :
waste production by 2000 would require Hydro :
to recycle between | and 2 Tg of waste per :
annum. The heavier fossil-based Cases |
(Cases 24 and 26) would have greater difficulty :

: achieving this target.

5 - 46

6.0 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

This section summarizes the results of the environmental analysis.

The natural and social environmental

advantages and disadvantages are the focus for this discussion.

Opportunities to mitigate or compensate for :
: potential adverse environmental effects are :
: identified. Residual effects and programs which |
: offer the potential to reduce these effects
: are described. The report then sets out nine -
: less than the two fossil-based Cases (Cases 24 2
: and 26) and the mixed Case (Case 15). All 2

- Cases, except Case 26, show a net decline in :

: conclusions.

6.1 Natural Environment

2 Table 6-1 uses emission /use values estimated |
in Table 5-2 to determine the relative percent :
: differences among Cases, assuming median :
: load. The lowest emission/use value for each :
: criteria is assigned a base value of 1.00. A
: value of 2.00, for example, would indicate :
: that a Case uses twice as much resource or :

: produces twice as much emission/effluent/waste |

: as the base case.

In addition, comparative indices have been |
: developed whereby annual estimates of resource |
: use/emissions have been normalized by re |
: ducing them to a per TWh basis (using total :

: TWh produced in each year). These indices : Land Use

(Figures 6-1 to 6-9) give a general indication

- of relative trends in system environmental per- :

formance over the plan period. Noticeable

: differences do not occur until after 2000, when -

- significant new supply is added to the BES.

6.1.1 Resource Use

Non-Renewable Resources

Case 23 consumes marginally fewer non-renew- :
able resources than in Case 22 and significantly |

use of coal resources over the planning period |

(Figure 6-1). Gas and oil resource use remains |
negligible in all Cases until the latter part of :

the planning period. Use of uranium increases |

in all cases, except Case 26.

Use of limestone for FGD varies significantly
among Cases (Figure 6-1), with the fossil- :
based Cases showing dramatic increases in :
- use in the post-2000 period. This increase reflects
+ the expanded application of FGD required
to keep total acid gas emissions within current 2

regulatory limits.

- All Cases show a decrease in the normalized |
requirement for land resources over the study |

period (Figure 6-2). From a life cycle per- :

spective, the nuclear-based Cases displace less

2 land than the fossil-based Cases.

6-1

£25

> 30

Table 6-1 Plan Comparison Summary: Natural Environment — Median Load :

Factor / Criterion Case*
23 22 15 24 26
A. Resource Use

Non-Renewables: Fuel

1. Coal 1.00 1.33 1.68 1.93 2.59

2. Oil 1.00 2.88 6.57 9.00 13.38

3. Gas. 1.00 30.00 252.00 326 519.00

4, Uranium 1:23 1.18 1.13 1.10 1.00
Non-Renewables: Other

1. Limestone (for FGD) 1.00 1.39 1.63 2.22 4.24
Water Use

1. Water (Generation Related) 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.06 1.00

2. Water (Life Cycle) 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.00
Land Use

1. Land (Generation Related) 1.13 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.03

2. Land (Life Cycle) . 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.11 1.23

B. Emissions / Effluents / Wastes

Atmospheric Emissions

1. $0, : 1.00 1.29 448 1.49 1.56
2. NO, 1.00 132 1.71 1.79 2.05
3. Total Acid Gas (SO, + NO,) 00: 1.29 St 1.54 1.65
4. CO, 1.00 1.28 1.61 1.82 2.51
5. Radionuclides 1.23 Liss 1.14 1.10 1.00
6. Trace Elements 1.00 1.34 1.73 1.91 2.75
Aquatic Effluent
1. Thermal Discharge 1.07 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.00
2. Radionuclides 1.23 1.19 1.14 1.10 1.00
3. Uranium Mining Effluent 1.23 1.19 1.14 1.10 1.00
4. Coal Mining Effluent 1.00 1.33 1.68 1.91 2.65
Wastes
1. Coal Ash 1.00 1.34 1.78 1.97 2.54
2. FGD Wastes 1.00 1,39 1.63 Zoe 4.24
3. Used Nuclear Fuel 1.23 1.19 1.14 1.10 1,00
4. Low Level Radioactive Waste 1.23 1.19 1.14 1.10 1.00
5. Uranium Mine Tailings 26 1.19 1.14 ake) 1.00
6. Total Wastes 1.00 1.09 1.19 1.27 1.52

Note: *1.00 = Lowest Value (base case) among cases/plans
Other Values represent % difference from Lowest (base) Value
**Case 23 assumes no gas is used — therefore, Case 22 should be assumed base value

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-2

GI/TWh

Gg/TWh

120

Figure 6-1 Non-Renewable Resource Use Index — All Cases

Coal

Gm3/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990 12°34 6 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Year

Oil

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96:97 98990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Year

Uranium

Gg/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98.990 12 3 4 5 G6 7 8 YG 10 NN 12 13 14

Year

Lor]

Gas

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 9899012345 67 8 9 011 1213 4
Year

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

Limestone

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-3

~—

Figure 6-2 Land Use Index — All Cases
Note: Includes all Ontario Hydro-owned land prior to 1989.

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

Ha/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

<Summary of Analysis -. Chapter Six>
6-4

140

120

m3/TWh (Millions)

—
oO
oO

oc
oS

400

350

Figure 6-3 Water Use Index — All Cases

Water Use — Generation

Case 24
Case 26

Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Life Cycle Water Use

Year

Case 24
Case 26

SSS aes
iss Sn Case 22

Case 23

Case 15

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14
Year

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-5

Transmission requirements dominate total

: generation-related land use requirements in
all 5 planning Cases (Figure 6-4). Taking max-
: imum advantage of opportunities to use existing
2 ROWs for new transmission, and Ontario :
: Hydro’s practice of encouraging compatible : .
land uses within its ROWs, will optimize the :
: use of existing and future land holdings and :
: will reduce the net environmental effect. :
2 Transmission facilities occupy less than 1% : |
: of the total ROW area. :

As with ROWs, Hydro’s policy is to make | ;

2 maximum use of existing generating station
: sites before developing new “green” sites and :
to provide opportunities for compatible :
: secondary uses. 3

Mining is a major component of life cycle

land use in all Cases (Figure 6-4). Most often =
: opportunities for prudent site management
2 and rehabilitation are beyond the direct control
of Ontario Hydro, since it neither owns nor :
operates these mines. It is broadly assumed :
: that regulations are in place to facilitate restora- :

' tion of these sites when mining ends.

2 Water Use
: Case 26 consumes marginally less water than :
2 the other Cases. Life cycle water use (based
: on normalized values) decreases in all Cases :
: over the study period (Figure 6-3). Normalized 7
cooling water use increases for nuclear-based :
: Cases and decreases for fossil-based Cases,
: (Figure 6-3). Cooling water constraints for
: new generation are likely to be site-dependent 4
and could affect cooling system design. :

Recent regulatory initiatives suggest that |

large water users like Ontario Hydro could 7
: have to pay more for the water they use. Water :
: rental payments, amounting to about $90 mil- :
: lion, anually are currently paid to MNR for |

- water used at hydraulic facilities.

Reducing consumptive uses in the Great Figure 6-4 Typical Water Use and Land Use Allocation for Cases

Lakes basin will also be a priority. Increased 3 Cumulative (1989-2014) Case 15 Median
: re-use of process and other waste waters at |

i ities . Land Use

generating stations provides Sp reuniies : BH Trans ROW 38%
: to reduce long-term water requirements. HM New Site 6%

@ Wastes 1%
@ Mining 54%

Reducing waste water effluents is also con- :
: sistent with the at-source control philosophy
of the Municipal Industrial Source Abatement :
(MISA) Program. |

6.1.2 Emissions /Effluents /Wastes

Atmospheric Emissions
All Cases meet current regulatory limits for :
- $0», NOx, total acid gas (SO, + NOx), and —
radionuclide emissions. In all Cases, there is

anet decrease in SO, and total acid gas emissions
(on a per TWh basis) over the plan period :
(Figure 6-5). Annual NOx emissions decline :
slightly in the nuclear-based and mixed Cases, :
but remain stable or rise slightly in the fossil- :

3 : Water Use

: based Cases after the year 2000 (Figure 6-5).

" Stricter NOx emission limits would bea problem H Cooling Water 35%

_ for all cases with upper load growth, particu- ; am Naren ban vaio Eon

- larly from 2000 to 2005. The fossil-based Cases Mt Water bor Mining cle

would have difficulty meeting these lower NOx :
: limits over much of the planning period.
At the end of the planning period (Figure :
6-8) , radionuclide emissions will be marginally
higher for the nuclear-based Cases than the :
fossil-based Cases. Only Case 26 shows a notice-
able decrease in radionuclide emissions over :
the planning period. :

As noted previously, SO, emissions, are :
and will continue to be, controlled to meet
regulatory limits. Control methods include :
: using low-sulphur coal and installing scrubbers 7
on selected existing coal-fired units. All new ;

coal-fired units will be fitted with scrubbers |
- and SCR, or equivalent NOx control. Total

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6 - 6

7s)

2.0

0.5

0.35

0.30

95 002
|
ae
oe
15 |
vce
05 |

Figure 6-5 Atmospheric Emission Index — All Cases

Acid Gas 25 _902

2.0

mea BL)
ie
S
TAO
0
99 90 91 92 93 94.95 96 9798990123 4567 8 9 01 12 13% 89 90 91 92 93.94.95 969798990123 45678 9 WN 21314

Year

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22

Case 23

Case 15

89 90 91 92 93.94 95.96 9798990123 45 67 8 9 1 12 13 14
Year

0.020 Trace Element

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 969798990 123 45 67 8 9 1011 12 13 14 : 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990123 45 67 8 9 1 12 13 14
Year Year

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-7

er ey
5 Figure 6-6 CO,Produced by Power Generation Processes

Lignite

Canadian Bituminous
U.S. Bituminous
Residual Oil

Natural Gas
Methane

Wood Waste

Lignite

Canadian Bituminous
U.S. Bituminous
Natural Gas

Energy from Waste
Natural Gas

Lignite

Canadian Bituminous
U.S. Bituminous
Light Oil

Light Oil

Natural Gas

Nuclear

Hydraulic

0 0.5 1.0
Kg CO, per kWh Net Electrical Energy

TAL .
Conventional
Boilers

IGCC
Combined Cycle

Energy from
Waste

Cogeneration

Fluidized Bed
Combustion

Small CTUs

Large CTUs

1.5 2.0 25

_ acid gas emissions remain below currentreg- :
- ulatory limits throughout the planning period.

: Ifmore stringent NOx emission limits are
: applied, it may be necessary to install Selective

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or some equivalent
' high-efficiency NOx control equipment on :

: some, or all, existing coal-fired stations.

: _ CQ, emissions could be a problem if pro-
: posed emission targets are adopted. CO, emis-
: sions at the end of the study period vary

significantly.

: Aproposed 20% reduction in CO, emissions :
starting in 2005 would pose difficulties for :
Cases 24 and 26 with median load growth.
Upper load growth would cause severe prob- :
lems for all Cases. Cases 23, 22 and 15 could :
: meet this 20% target with upper load growth :
(Figure 5-18), but Cases 24 and 26 could not.
: Options for reducing Ontario Hydro’s con- :
tribution to the CO, problem and dealing
: with potential effects are discussed in detail :
: elsewhere (Ontario Hydro, 1989c). Many options :

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-8

have already been factored into the alternative :
Cases (e.g., maximize demand management :

and system energy efficiency, use lower carbon |
: or non-carbon-producing fuels).

Practical techniques for removing CO, :
directly from the flue gas of fossil-fueled gen- |

' erating stations are not commercially available

and would be economically prohibitive. :
Moreover, disposal of the scrubbed CO, would :
presenta substantial problem, given the poten- :

tially vast quantities involved. A variety of options :

are available for reducing or controlling CO, :
emissions. For example, using IGCC asa replace- :
ment for conventional CSC coal plants could :
decrease CO, emissions. Avoidance of interim :
use, or earlier conversion, of CTUs to Combined :
Cycle units should improve Case performance
as CCs have lower CO» emission rates than 7
CTUs (Figure 6-6). In addition, the success :
of non-generation options like Hydro’s demand :
management programs will be extremely impor- |

: tant in limiting future CO» emissions.
Reforestation efforts, such as Hydro’s tree
replacement program, are also important as :
: they would help maintain the vegetative sink :
: needed to absorb future CO, emissions. This :
activity could also provide local employment :

- opportunities, particularly in the northern

. part of the province.

| Aquatic Effluents

Except for variations in coal mine drainage, :
2 there is little significant difference in aquatic
effluents among Cases (Figure 5-6). There :
is little variation, as well, in cooling water :
: flows and thermal discharges (Figures 6-3 :
: and 6-8). Cooling water flows are constant
or decline slightly over the planning period.
Thermal discharge levels rise slightly in the :

: nuclear-based Cases and decline slightly in ©

2 fossil-based Cases.

' At the end of the planning period :
(Figure 6-7), radionuclide effluents will be
2 marginally higher for the nuclear-based Cases :
than in the fossil-based Cases. Only Case 26 :

_ shows a noticeable decrease in radionuclide -

- effluents.

Opportunities to reduce discharges and :
: promote more extensive water re-use are likely :
: to be driven by the MISA initiative, and increas- :
2 ing concern about consumptive water use in :

2 the Great Lakes Basin.

: Waste Production

: All alternative Cases will produce significant :
quantities of waste by the end of the study :
: period (Figure 5-7). Normalized total waste
: production for nuclear-based Cases and the :
: mixed Case decrease over the study period,

: while production rates for the fossil-based Cases :

- increase (Figure 6-9).

Figure 6-7 Radionuclide Index — All Cases

2000 Radionuclides — Air

pis a ee een
Se

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

Ci/TWh

800
600

89 90 91 92 93 94.95 969798990 123 45 6 7 8 9 10M 12 1B 14

Radionuclides — Water

Year

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96.97 98 990123 45 6 7 8 Y 10M 12 13 14

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

Case 24
Case 26
Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

6-9

Figure 6-8 Thermal Discharge Index — All Cases

6000

5000

Case 24

Case 26

4000

Case 22

Case 23

3000

Case 15

TJoules/TWh

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9798990 123 45 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14

Year

The fossil-based Cases produce marginally :
- less radioactive waste than the nuclear-based 7

: Cases and the mixed Case.

Recent provincial targets have recommended
a 50% reduction in solid waste production
in Ontario by 2000. Strategies to reach these
targets stress increased waste recycling and :
re-use. Hydro is currently considering setting :
recycling/re-use targets for its fossil combus- :
2 tion/control wastes. Anumber of options are
: available to significantly reduce waste volumes.
: For example, a significant amount of fossil- :
: based waste (ash and FGD wastes) could be :
: reduced through more vigorous commitment :
: to waste recycling and re-use programs. Ash :
: from Hydro’s coal-fired stations has historically :
been utilized for a number of constructive
purposes, including: replacement/additive :

' material in cement making, backfill material

for mines and pit/quarry rehabilitation, and :

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6 - 10

hazardous liquid stabilization. In 1988, about :
20% of the ash produced by Hydro’s coal- :

fired stations was recycled. Hydro is actively

pursuing a variety of opportunities to expand :
the re-use of ash. To meet a 50% reduction :
target, Ontario Hydro would need to signi- |
ficantly expand efforts in this area. :

Scrubbing SOs, from the flue gas at coal- :
fired stations produces a calcium sulphate :
(gypsum) waste that can, at an additional cost, :
be used in commercial grade wallboard. Hydro :
is negotiating with wallboard manufacturers :
to develop a market for FGD gypsum to be :
produced at Lambton GS starting in 1994. :

Radioactive wastes have limited potential :
for re-use. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. :
(AECL) is seeking government approval of :
a disposal concept for high level radioactive :

" wastes in Canada. Public hearings on this con-

cept are expected to start in 1991.

| 6.2 Social Environment
| 6.2.1 Socio-Economic Effects

| Regional Employment

Demand and supply resources will generate :
significant employment across the province.
- Employment created by hydraulic and non- |

- utility generation will be particularly important |

: in the north.

- Total employment created by major new
supply will not vary significantly among Cases,
: since all require similar generating capacity. :
: Any differences arise from the labour require- 2
: ments of the various technologies, site devel- :
: opment needed, and indirect and induced
employment at various sites. Generally, nuclear
projects require the highest employment levels. :
- Levels fall, in turn, for CSC, IGCC, CC, and -
: CTU. Newsites and northern projects, which :
: require site development and expansion of :
infrastructure and regional businesses and

- services, will generate more employment than

- expansion of capacity at existing sites.

Hiring depends on the availability and skills :
: of the local workforce. Generally, projects in
southern Ontario near major centres are able
: to draw on local and commuting workers. :
Projects in northern, or less developed, areas :
: will require an influx of project workers, as :
: well as indirect workers. Northern hydraulic :
: developments are among the most likely to
: require workers from beyond the local area.
: To reduce the potential impacts of an influx
2 of population on community facilities and :
: services, and to ensure that the host communities
benefit from the project, local hiring is pre-
: ferred. Facilitating local hiring may require :
: joint initiatives involving Hydro, the trade

- unions, and governments. These could include |

Figure 6-9 Waste Production Index — All Cases

Case 24

Case 26

Case 22
Case 23

Case 15

Tg/TWh
° on S a

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98990 123 4 56789 01213 14

Year

Waste — Cumulative (1989-2014) — Case 15 Median

MH Uranium Tailings 52%

@ Spent Uranium Fuel <1%
@ Low Level Wastes <1%
© Ash 35%

@ FGD 12%

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-11

- training and apprenticeship programs, and i

- special arrangements for union qualification
: and hiring.

Case 23 will create the highest level of :

: employment. Case 26, without nuclear, will

- create somewhat less employment than all other |

: Cases.

| Regional Economic Development

Regional economic development stems from :
many sources. These include the direct effect
of material and service purchases, the indirect
effects of employee spending, and the devel-
opment of infrastructure, businesses, and ser-
vices in affected communities. While generating 2
station projects do not generally attract other :
industries, improved infrastructure and access :
and the availability of a skilled workforce can :
facilitate other economic developments. :
Significant potential exists for heat energy
developments constructed in conjunction with

: nuclear projects.

: While most communities and regions wel- :
come economic development, there are impor- :
tant considerations which must be addressed. :
These include scale, pace, and compatibility :
with the existing resources, economic base, :
: and character of the region. Ideally, economic |
development initiatives should be of a size
and pace that enables the community to accom- :
modate growth; makes use of available strengths
or resources; and fits with local goals for :

development.

The most significant opportunities for eco-
nomic development are hydraulic developments
7 in northern Ontario, particularly the Moose :
River Basin. While non-utility generation offers

: limited opportunities, these may be significant =

in northern or less developed areas. Demand :
management has limited potential because :
: of its distributed nature.

Large-scale projects in less developed areas
- of the province offer the largest regional devel- :

opment opportunities.

Local Community Impacts
: Any major energy development will affect :
surrounding communities. The extent and :
significance of the impacts will depend on
how well project characteristics (size, labour :
requirements and schedule) fit the servicing :
capacities of those communities. A major factor :
is the availability of skilled project workers, :
because the in-migration of workers and families :

may strain community facilities, services, admin-

istration, and financialresources.

Although not necessarily incompatible, there 2
is a potential conflict between the objectives :
of maximizing regional economic development :
: and minimizing local community impacts. Areas :
of high unemployment, or areas seeking indus- :
trial development or diversification, are often :
small communities with a limited skilled work- :
force, limited infrastructure, fewer community :
facilities and services, and limited experience :
with major development projects. Consequently, :
measures are needed to mitigate potential :
adverse impacts and to ensure that local benefits :
of employment and economic stimulus are :
realized. Some measures to enhance local and :
- regional employment and economic devel- :
opment can also help reduce adverse local :
community impacts. For example, training :

can reduce the need to move new workers to :

the area.

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-12

Many local community impacts can be |

- avoided, reduced, or mitigated with appropriate :
_ impact management programs. These typically

include: using construction camps to ease the |

strain of in-moving workers on the community;

assisting or advancing the development of infra-
- structure such as roads, water and sewage treat-
ment, community facilities for health care,

education, recreation, fire and police; and :
helping strengthen administration and financial
management. In the past, Hydro has negotiated
community impact agreements with munici- 7
palities affected by the Darlington, Atikokan, :
and Bruce generating stations. The arrange- :
ments included monitoring project impacts, 7
liaison with the municipality, and negotiation 7
of financial assistance. A similar process for 2

new major supply will be required.

The development of northern hydraulic :
facilities will include programs to mitigate :
any adverse impacts and enhance local benefits. :

The other common elements of demand
management and non-utility generation will
have few or limited community impacts because :
of their smaller scale and distributed nature. :

6.2.2 Societal Considerations

Social Acceptance
All but one of the Cases has a nuclear com- :
ponent. Social acceptance of these Cases will :
depend heavily on the public’s perception :
of risk and the measures taken to handle such :
issues as safety and waste management. :

The social acceptance of Case 26, with no :
nuclear component, will depend on the public’s :

: perception of the cleanliness of the technologies. 7
- The use of scrubbers and IGCCs will likely |
- enhance its social acceptability. Acid gas and |

greenhouse effects will be a concern.

: Special/Sensitive Groups

- In Ontario there are many groups of individuals
: with special interests related to cultural back- :
: ground, socio-economic position, chosen :
: lifestyle, livelihood, or particular concern. :
: Mostlikely to be affected are environmental, :

: northern, Native, recreational, business, and :

: labour interests.

The common elements will have varying :
: effects. Northern, Native, environmental and
: recreational interests will be affected by :
: hydraulic developments; community, environ- :
: mental and health interests will be affected :
: by waste-fueled non-utility generation;
: low-income or other groups may be unable
to take advantage of the benefits of demand

| management.

With some exceptions, the alternative supply
Cases contain the same technologies and thus 2
: affect similar special or sensitive interests. :
All Cases, except Case 26, include nuclear 2
developments, which will be a concern to energy,
: environmental and community interests. Case :

: 26 has no new nuclear developments but |

- increases the potential effects of fossil

: generation. All Cases include some fossil :
' Distribution of Risks and Benefits
- The benefits of the continued availability of |

generation, which will affect environmental,
: recreational, resource industry, and health
_ interests concerned about acid rain and the

- greenhouse effect.

| Lifestyle Impacts

Lifestyle impacts occur when people change

- the routine of their day-to-day lives, or when

- altered perceptions result in changed attitudes |

- or activities. Examples of lifestyle impacts are:

: changes in patterns of energy use and daily -

: activities with time-of-use rates; changes in

- small rural or recreational communities

: with the coming ofa major industrial project;

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6 - 13

- and changes in activities and social —

patterns because of concerns about public :
health and safety. :
For most Ontarians not directly affected :
bya supply option or the associated transmission, : A
there will be limited impact on lifestyles. The :

main sources of change would result from |

_ time-of-use or other load- shifting options, :

changes in use of recreational areas affected : ;
by new facilities, or activities undertaken because :
of strong concerns about environmental or ’
other public issues. :
For those in communities affected by supply
options or who have a special interest, lifestyle
impacts may be significant. Lifestyle impacts :
are highly likely in northern and Native com- : :

munities affected by hydraulic developments. :

Concerns about public health and safety may : |
result in lifestyle changes among some groups ‘
in communities affected by nuclear facilities.
Communities affected by IGCC or conven- q
tional coal projects may also see lifestyle :
changes because of concerns about the effects :

handling facilities.

- economic, reliable electricity are available across ©
the province and contribute significantly to
- Ontario’s prosperity. The perceived risks of |

- the common elements and the alternative major -

supply cases are not so evenly distributed, giving

- rise to equity issues.

The most significant equity issues for the :

in the access to and in sharing of benefits of -

- demand management initiatives; the impacts |

15:

: hydraulic develop.ments; and the potential
: effects of waste-burning non-utility generation.
As discussed earlier, these potential inequities
can be effectively mitigated.

All Cases include development of major

: generation facilities. Equity concerns may arise
: in relation to effects on surrounding areas :
: and it may be necessary to ensure that com-
: pensating benefits are captured locally and
: regionally. All of the Cases, except Case 26,
include nuclear generation, thereby raising
: questions of perceived risk to local residents
and to future generations. All Cases rely to
: varying degrees on fossil generation, with Case
: 26 exclusively fossil, raising questions of long- :
: term environmental effects, climatic change, :
: and the use of non-renewable resources, par- 2
: ticularly oil and natural gas. |

6.3 Residual Effects
: All plans reflect a serious commitment to mit-
: igating and controlling environmental effects. :
: In addition, the plans contemplate that addi- :
tional demand management programs, and
the use of renewable resources for electricity :
generation, will continue to be given high
: priority. However, there are residual environ- :
: mental effects that are evident by the end of :
the planning period. These include: significant :
2 use of non-renewable resources, water and :
land; emissions of acid gas and CO; and pro- :
duction of solid waste. All plans also offer a :
range of potential social benefits, including
increased employment and regional devel- 2
: opment opportunities. Potential adverse social :
: effects relate to localized community impacts
: associated mainly with the supply components :
: of a preferred plan. :
: Ongoing efforts by Ontario Hydro in the :
following areas will provide opportunities to :
further reduce residual effects:

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6-14

: ¢ Research and development to facilitate appli- ,
: cation of best available control technology :
at existing and new stations to provide con- |
tinuing reductions in overall system emissions

: and afford a wider operating margin with respect

to existing and anticipated regulations;
¢ Regular re-evaluations of the trade-offs |
associated with advancement of the phasing |

: of IGCC or other clean coal technologies, :

: with a view to further reducing acid gas and |

CO, emissions, and waste volumes, over the :
long term;

¢ Continued and expanded commitment to |

- waste re-use and recycling programs, particularly

in the area of fossil combustion and emission |
control wastes;

¢ Continued and expanded commitment to |

- water re-use and recycling to reduce consumptive |
: water use and reduce discharges to Ontario
: waterbodies; :

¢ Continued and expanded support for waste
heat utilization projects (e.g., aquaculture)
to reduce thermal discharges to the envi :

' ronment;

¢ Continued and expanded commitment to :
promoting compatible uses of land at generating :
stations and along rights-of-way; :
¢ Continued and expanded commitment to :
reforestation efforts to offset vegetation losses :
due to hydraulic flooding and transmission :
right-of-way clearing. This has ancillary benefits :
of increasing the CQ, absorbing vegetative
sink in Ontario and providing local employment :
opportunities; 3
¢ Continued commitment to public consul- :
tation and community impact management :
in dealing with potentially affected individuals

- and communities.

Figure 6-10 Environmental Analysis Summary

Resource Use Natural Environment
Hae Highest use of
Fuel a ee Intermediate met fils =
pacers use level , ©
_uranium use pa _ Lowest uranium use ©
Highest generation aoe Bieidice nee Gens tea Highest life cycle
Land Lowestlanduse Intermediate ret feces ree
Use related land use. Lowest forgeneration uselevel 5 land use (hvastes dete
life cycle land used olan bagiagt tie ah eer ar ya ; -& mining dominate) —
ares TE aE eISey TER =
Water Highest water Intermediate Lowest water —
Use Eas usep ea) -uselevel Seon USS aioe

Emissions/Effluents/Wastes

Air Lowest acid gas Intermediate Highest acid gas
&CO02 — Emission level eS ad C2 leah
| Highest thermal Crate ns nh a i Lowest thermal
Wate _ discharge & lowest gets pen bea eae _ discharge & highest _
conventional effluent eco i aoler Si oerc ert taht conventional effluent —
Lowest ash/FGD Intermediate
Wastes Highest radioactive — waste production
wastes : ge tse Jevel. i eras
Socio-Economic Effects Social Environment (site dependent)
Employment Highest . ‘Moderate z us
potential i) potential ><
; oe a
Regional Highest potential — _ Moderate
Development (more Sites & Rows) Pig oe potentials 27
Local High potential for . Moderate , bial "a
impacts negative effects _ | potential tee Soe Heeteie aati

Societal Considerations

é _ | High potential | pees ee High potential -
ae Sensitive effects. (rad, waste, deci effects (trans. in

emergency planning) Northern Ont.) acid rain

: [Some potential : Some potential
Lifestyle | for change “eh for change”
| (nuclear safety) aye (construction influx)
é WGoneem for ws bre : Concern for i:
Equity intergenerational yea ce os inter-regional
equity (rad. waste) Lot ae — equity (acid rain) —
Social Potentially low P Moderate potential fi Potentially low 4
Acceptance (radwaste disposal) for acceptance (acid rain, C02)

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6 - 15

and other societal considerations, to ensure
that an appropriate balance is struck between
Ontario’s electricity use and its desire to main- :
tain a high level of environmental quality.

6.4 Conclusions
The environmental advantages and disadvan- :
tages of the alternative Cases are summarized :
in Figure 6-10. The arrows give a general indi-
cation of preference. Itis important to recognize
that tradeoffs and mitigation measures are |
necessary for all alternative plans. :
: The following conclusions can be drawn
from the environmental analysis:

General
¢ None of the alternative plans is clearly superior :
with respect to all natural and social envi-
ronmental criteria considered. :
¢ Achieving acceptable environmental effects
for the alternative plans will require careful :
siting, design, construction, and mitigation : Major Supply Cases
measures for the various plan components.
Project environmental assessments will address :
Eeee factor’: amount of land utilized by each plan. Most
Common Elements
¢ The high priority common elements in the
plans generally reduce the need for future
major supply and promote the utilization of

: renewable resources.

Demand management options are generally

: favoured from an environmental viewpoint,

since the focus of these programs is on using

7 energy more efficiently, thereby reducing energy :
: use for the same level of service.
Hydraulic generation, certain types of non-
utility generation, and the Manitoba purchase :
provide the only true renewable energy sources :
: utilized in each plan. There will, however, be

environmental effects associated with pursuing

these options. Environmental assessments will
be carried out, as required, to ensure that :
these projects are implemented in an envi- :
: ronmentally acceptable manner. |
: Hydro’s continuing efforts to increase the
: contribution from the common elements, par- :
ticularly those related to demand management :
and renewable resource use, are important 2

: for increasing the plans’ long-term environ- -

mental sustainability and social acceptance.

¢ Front-end fuel cycle impacts (i.e., mining)

significantly affect the wastes produced and —

_ of these impacts are beyond the direct control _
of Ontario Hydro. It is assumed, however, that :
these activities will be regulated to meet appro-
priate environmental standards, and that the :
costs of any remedial measures (e.g., site man- :
: agement and reclamation) are reflected in :
the price of purchased fuels.
: * Nuclear-based Cases tend to have the lowest
system non-renewable resource use, atmospheric :

: emissions, and total waste production. However, :

<Summary of Analysis - Chapter Six>
6 - 16

: they produce higher amounts of radioactive ;
' waste and utilize higher quantities of water. |
- While these radioactive emissions/wastes |

are well managed, they representa source of :

- public concern.

¢ Fossil-based Cases tend to have the lowest |
radioactive waste production and water use. -

However, they consume the highest quantities

- of non-renewable resources and produce sig- :

- nificantly higher acid gas and CO, emissions, :

and waste volumes. While these Cases meet |
current regulatory limits on emissions and |

wastes, problems like acid rain and the green- :

- house effect are a source of public concern. |

¢ A Case that utilizes a mix of both fossil and :
nuclear generation provides a “middle ground” :
in that it has an intermediate level of non- 7
renewable resource use, atmospheric emissions, :

water use, aquatic effluents, and waste pro-

: duction. However, public concerns related |
2 to both forms of generation will have to be
reconciled. :
¢ Regulations related to the environment are :

expected to tighten, requiring reduced emission -
levels and increased levels of control. Meeting :
these regulatory limits will be more difficult :
for the fossil-based Cases, particularly under :
upper load growth. :
¢ There are residual environmental effects. 7
Ontario Hydro is committed to pursuing a 7
variety of measures which offer the potential

: for further mitigating the residual environ-

mental effects of the Demand/Supply Plan. :

B.C. Hydro, 1989, An Introduction to the
Twenty-Year Resource Plan, April.

Curver, P.C., 1989, What will be the Fate
of Clean Coal Technologies?, Env. Sci. Technol.,
v. 23, #9, September.

EPRI, 1988, Utility Turbpower for the 1990s,
EPRI Journal, April/May.

Environment Canada, 1986, Fact Sheet:
Municipal Incinerators — Pollution Control
Systems, Ottawa.

Ferguson, J.H., 1989, Review of the
Economic, Technical and Environmental Studies
on Clean Coal Technologies, Environmental
Studies & Assessments Dept. Technical Memo
#TM89/4, March.

Kristoferson, L., 1988, Energy and
Environment— How to Implement Sustainable
Energy Futures, in Perspectives on Sustainable
Development - Some Critical Issues Related
to the Brundtland Report, Stockholm.

Michigan Department of Commerce,
1987, Final Report - Michigan Electricity
Options Study

Northwest Power Planning Council, 1989,
the

Consequences of Electricity Resources During

Accounting for Environmental
the Power Planning Process, Issue Paper
#89-7, April.

Ontario Hydro, 1989a, Demand/Supply
Planning Strategy, Report #666D-SP, March.

7.0 REFERENCES

Ontario Hydro, 1989b, Corporate Relations
Outlook-1989.

Ontario Hydro, 1989c, Task Force Report
on Greenhouse Effect, November.

Ontario Hydro, 1989d, Thermal Cost
Review, August.

Ontario Hydro, 1989e, Options Available
to Meet Acid Gas Limits and Selection of
Preferred Options, January.

Ontario Hydro, 1989f, Draft Demand/Supply
Planning Strategy — Review, Report #666C SP,
April.

Ontario Hydro, 1988, 1988 Bulk Electricity
System Transmission, Report #671 SP, October.

Ontario Hydro, 1987a, Meeting Future
Energy Needs - Draft Demand/ Supply Planning
Strategy Reference Report — Analysis of
Representative Plans - Social and Community
Impacts, Corporate Relations Dept., January.

Ontario Hydro, 1987b, Meeting Future
Energy Needs — Draft Demand/Supply Planning
Strategy Reference Report - Analysis of
Representative Plans — Provincial Economic
Impact Assessment of Representative Plans,
Economics & Forecasts Division, January.

Ontario Hydro, 1987c, Meeting Future
Energy Needs — Draft Demand/Supply Planning
Strategy Reference Report - Analysis of
Representative Plans - Transmission Aspects
of Representative Plans, Report #660 SP, April.

<References - Chapter Seven>
7-1

Ontario Hydro, 1987d, Meeting Future
Energy Needs — Draft Demand/Supply Planning
Strategy, Report #666 SP, December.

Ontario Hydro, 1986a, Meeting Future
Energy Needs - Draft Demand/Supply Planning
Strategy Reference Report - Analysis of
Representative Plans - Environmental Impacts
- Generation, Report #86193, August.

Ontario Hydro, 1986b, Demand/Supply
Options Study - The Options, Report #652
SP, February.

Ontario Hydro, 1982, Hydraulic Power
Resources of the Province of Ontario, Report
#82572, December.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR), 1988, New Provincial Parks and New
Protection Policy, May (Press Release).

Patterson, W., 1989, Coal Comes Back as
a Gas, New Scientist, 29 April.

RCEPP, 1980, Environmental and Health
Implications of Electrical Energy in Ontario,
Volume #6.

Select Committee on Energy, 1988, Review
of Draft Demand/Supply Planning Strategy.

United Nations Environmental Program, 1987,
Our Common Future, (the Brundtland Report).

World Energy Conference, 1988,
Environmental Effects Arising from Electricity
Supply and Utilisation and the Resulting Cost
to the Utility, October.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACID DEPOSITION —a process by which sub-
stances capable of chemically donating a positive
hydrogen ion are deposited on the earth’s
surface, thereby tending to shift receiving sub-
stances towards the acid end of the pH scale.
Deposition may occur during precipitation
by removal of suspended or gaseous material
from the air (commonly referred to as acid
rain), or in dry form when particles are
deposited or absorbed onto surfaces.

ACID GAS - refers to the emissions of SO,
and NO, which are the precursors of acid rain.
ACID MINE DRAINAGE - the solutions leaving
amine which contain certain oxides that react
with water to form acids i.e. solutions in
which the hydrogen ion concentration is
greater than 107.

ACID RAIN a technically incorrect, but gen-
erally accepted synonym for acidic precipitation.
It includes rain, snow, sleet and hail having
an acidity below pH 5.6. Acid rain is the primary
result of emissions of sulphur oxides (SOg)
and nitrogen oxides (NO,), which are trans-
formed into sulphuric acid and nitric acid,
respectively, as they are transported by the
atmosphere over distances of hundreds to thou-
sands of kilometres.

AECB (Atomic Energy Control Board) - the
organization established by the Atomic Energy
Control Act of 1946 “to make provision for
the control and supervision of the development,
application, and use of atomic energy and to
enable Canada to participate effectively in
measures of international control of atomic

_ energy”. Thus, the AECB, viaa comprehensive

licensing and inspecting system, is res-
ponsible for the health and security aspects
of nuclear energy.

AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) -
a Canadian federal crown corporation that
researches, designs, develops, applies and mar-

kets nuclear technologies in Canada and glob-
ally. The groups include nuclear waste man-
agement, CANDU reactor development, physics
and health sciences and radiation applications
and isotope sales.

A.L.A.R.A. (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
— a principle, promoted by Ontario Hydro,
which is based on cost-benefit analysis and is
reached when the socio-economic gains achieved
by further reducing a risk are equal to the
socio-economic costs of achieving that reduction.
BACTEA (Best Available Control Technology
Economically Available) — pollution emission
control technology which will offer the best
performance, yet is economically feasible.
BAGHOUSE - a large chamber or room for
holding bag filters used to remove particulate
from gas streams in a furnace.

BASE LOAD GENERATION - a generating
station expected to operate at 60% capacity
factor or higher.

BETA PARTICLES -~ an electron or positron
emitted by many radionuclides during radioac-
tive decay. It can penetrate body tissue to a
depth of 1 - 2 cm. It can cause both skin burns
and pose internal exposure hazards to humans
and animals.

BOTTOM ASH -a combination of inorganic
heavy ash particulates and molten slag that
forms on the internal surfaces of a boiler after
the combustion of coal in a generating station.
It constitutes about 10-20% of total ash pro-
duction. Most, if not all, of this ash is used
on-site for road construction and/or land-
scaping purposes at coal-fired stations.
BULK ELECTRICAL SYSTEM (BES) - the
integrated system of transmission lines and
stations by which electric power is delivered
from major generating stations to and between
load centers, and to and from interconnections

with neighbouring utilities.

<Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations>
]

CALANDRIA TUBES - the tubes in a CANDU
nuclear reactor that provide containment and
support for the in-core portions of the fuel
channels and isolate the pressure tubes from
direct contact with the heavy water moderator.
CANDU - a Canadian developed nuclear power
reactor system. The name is derived from
CANadian Deuterium Uranium, indicating
that the moderator is deuterium or heavy water
and that the fuel is natural uranium.
CAPACITY - the numerical measure used to
indicate “size”. For generating stations the
measurement is in megawatts (MW) or
kilowatts (kw).

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) - a colourless,
odourless, highly toxic gas that is a normal
by-product of incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
CO, one of the major air pollutants, can be
harmful in small amounts if breathed over a
certain period of time.

CC (Combined Cycle) - a high efficiency,
moderate capital-cost technology. It involves
generating electricity using a gas turbine,
and diverting the exhaust gases into a heat
recovery boiler to create steam. This
steam drives a turbine, which generates
additional electricity.

CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) -— a chemical com-
pound used as an aerosol propellant, solvent,
and refrigerant. Itis believed to be a contributor
to the depletion of the ozone layer, as well
as a strong greenhouse gas.

Ci (curie) - a measure of the rate at which a
radioactive material disintegrates. One curie
corresponds to 37 billion disintegrations
per second.

CO, (carbon dioxide) - a colourless gas pro-
duced by the complete combustion of carbon,
by the actions of acids on carbonates, by the
thermal decomposition of carbonates (e.g.
lime burning) and during fermentation. It

is one of the gases known to contribute to
the greenhouse effect.

COAL MINING WASTE - refers to solid and
liquid wastes created from the mining and
processing of coal. These include overburden,
refuse from coal washing and preparation,
which consists of coal waste and other impurities,
and sludge resulting from the treatment of
acid mine drainage.

COGENERATION -the ability to generate elec-
tricity and heat, usually in the form of steam,
at the same time.

COMMUNITY IMPACT AGREEMENT (CIA)
-a mitigation and/or compensation agreement
with a host community, where the social fabric
and infrastructure are affected for a limited
time by the construction, operation or decom-
missioning of any major Ontario Hydro facility.
For irreversible effects, it can provide a lump
sum payment by Ontario Hydro.
COMMUNITY IMPACT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM - a process for reaching agreements,
plans for mitigation, compensation, contingency
planning and community liaison. It is based
on negotiation between Ontario Hydro and
affected communities, and can resultin a CIA.
CONVENTIONAL WASTES - wastes other than
radioactive wastes produced at Ontario Hydro
generating stations.

COOLING TOWER - a mechanical device
used to remove excess heat from cooling water
used in industrial operations, particularly in
electric power generation.

COOLING WATER SYSTEM - includes intake
and discharge of water for condenser cooling
purposes at thermal generating stations.
CPM (Combustion Process Modification) -
a type of NO, control that involves changing
the combustion process at a fossil station (usually

changing the burners) to reduce combustion

temperatures required, and thereby reducing
NO, production.

CTU (Combustion Turbine Unit) - a generator
driven by an engine fuelled by some form of
refined petroleum product, usually diesel fuel,
oil or natural gas.

DEMAND - the power and energy that must
be generated to meet customer needs; includes
delivery losses.

DEMAND MANAGEMENT - measures taken
by Ontario Hydro and municipal utilities to
influence the amount and timing of customer
electricity demand.

DERIVED EMISSION LIMITS (DEL) - the
allowed amount of radiation released per year,
based on the AECB public dose limit. DELs
are station-specific and are conservative (prob-
ably high) estimates of the maximum permissible
average release rates of radioactivity, averaged
over a specified time (i.e. a year).
DEUTERIUM (D,0)-a stable, naturally occur-
ring hydrogen isotope. In the form of heavy
water, it is an effective neutron moderator
in nuclear reactors.

EAST-WEST TIE — a transmission system linking
eastern (east of Wawa) and western (west of
Wawa) portions of Ontario Hydro’s BES.
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP) -
an air pollution control device used to remove
particulates from a gas stream by charging
them with an electrode and then collecting
them on an oppositely charged plate.

EMF (electromagnetic field) EFFECTS - the
biological effects of electric and magnetic fields
generated by transmission lines and other elec-
trical devices.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS -
methods of improving the efficiency of a gen-
erating unit or the end-use of electricity.
ENERGY-FROM-WASTE (EFW) - the use of

waste products (e.g. scrap wood or refuse)

<Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations>
2

for power generation by burning the waste
to create steam.

ENTRAINMENT - the exposure of non-filter-
able organisms, like plankton, to mechanical,
pressure and thermal experiences of the heat
exchange system.

ENTRAPMENT - the capture of organisms
in cooling water at the intake of cooling
water systems.

ENVIRONMENT - according to the
Environmental Assessment Act, the environment
consists of,

a. air, land or water;

b. plant and animal life, including man;

c. the social, economic and cultural conditions
that influence the life of man or acommunity;
d. any buildings, structure, machine or other
device or thing made by man;

e. any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound,
vibration or radiation resulting directly or
indirectly from the activities of man; or

f. any part or combination of the foregoing
and the interrelationships between any two
or more of them.

FGD (flue gas desulphurization) - process in
which sulphur dioxide is removed from the
flue gas of a fossil-fueled generating station;
synonymous with scrubbers.

FGD WASTE - a sulphite/sulphate rich material
derived from FGD. Oxidized forms of this
material (e.g. calcium sulphate (CaCOs)) can
provide a source of commercial, wallboard-
quality gypsum.

FLUE GAS - a mixture of gases (e.g. SOs,
CO», NO,) resulting from combustion of hydro-
carbon based fuels.

FLUE GAS CONDITIONING - involves inject-
ing a mixture of ammonia (NHs) and sulphur
trioxide (SOs) into the flue gas ata coal-fired

generating station to control opacity levels.

This process is necessary to allow expanded
use of low sulphur coal at existing coal-fired
stations.

FLY ASH - the fine, non-combustible particulate
material derived from fossil fuel combustion
that is transported out of the boiler in the
flue gases and collected in an ESP or baghouse
for disposal or reuse. Fly ash typically consists
of aluminum, silica and unburned carbon,
as well as other trace elements. It is classified
as a non-hazardous industrial waste by the
Ministry of the Environment.

FUGITIVE DUST - airborne particles (e.g.
coal dust, coal ash, or other dry bulk material)
that escape from an uncontained mass of mate-
rial during handling, storage or transportation.
GAMMA RAY - high energy, highly penetrating
electromagnetic photons of short wavelength
commonly emitted by a nucleus of a radioactive
atom during radioactive decay, as a result of
a transition from an excited energy level to
a lower level.

Gg (gigagrams) - 109 grams or one billion
grams.

GREENHOUSE EFFECT - a naturally occurring
process whereby certain greenhouse gases,
mainly COs, vapour, clouds and trace gases
in the atmosphere allow the sun’s ultraviolet
and visible radiation to penetrate and warm
the earth, but then absorb the infrared energy
from the earth and radiate it back into the
atmosphere. By blocking the escape of this
outgoing radiation these gases effectively con-
tribute to a warming of the earth’s atmosphere.
It is predicted that continued increases in
anthropogenic emissions of certain gases (e.g.
CQ», CFCs) will accelerate this effect and dra-
matically increase rates of global warming.
GREENHOUSE GASES - gases that contribute
to global greenhouse warming. Potentially

important radiative gases include COs, water
vapour, methane, CFCs, ozone, NJO/NO,, CO,
SOQg, and carbonyl sulphide (COS).

GROSS BETA/GAMMA ~ a radiation expo-
sure/release based on an all inclusive radiation
field from beta particles and gamma rays without
differentiating them. This radiation field is
measured at the station and is not radionuclide-
specific. It is used in the determination of
the DEL.

HALF-LIFE - the time for half the atoms of
a radioactive substance to disintegrate; hence
the time to lose half its radioactive strength
(ranges from seconds to billions of years).
HEAVY WATER - deuterium oxide, D,O, the
moderator and heat transport fluid used in
CANDU reactors.

HGD - Hydroelectric Generation Development.
HYDROGEN SULPHIDE (H,S) - a by-product
of heavy water produced at nuclear generating
stations, as well as the gasification process
for IGCC. It is an acutely dangerous poison
to the central nervous system and respiratory
system at 400 ppm, a strong irritant of the
eye and respiratory tract at 100 ppm, and a
slight irritant at 10 ppm. Chronic exposure
to low levels may produce pulmonary edema.
1,3; (lodine,3;) — a radioactive isotope of iodine
having a short-term dose significance and half-
life of approximately eight days.

IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle)
- one of several “clean coal” generation alter-
natives. Coal is fed to the gasifier where it
reacts with steam and oxygen (or air) to produce
a hot raw fuel gas which is cooled and purified
to remove particulates and acid gas (mainly
hydrogen sulphide). Elemental sulphur is recoy-
ered from the H,S rich stream removed by
the acid gas removal process. The clean fuel
gas is burned in combustion turbines. The

<Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations>
3

hot flue gas leaving the combustion turbines
is cooled by generating, superheating, and
reheating steam, which is utilized in steam
turbines. Power is generated from both the
combustion and steam turbines.
IMPINGEMENT - the retention of organ-
isms, principally fish, on cooling water
screening systems.

IN-SERVICE DATE - the date a generating
unit is declared available for operation.
INTERCONNECTION - a transmission line
which can carry power across the boundaries
of service areas of adjacent electric utilities
(e.g. Hydro Quebec).

INTERMEDIATE RADIOACTIVE WASTES -
wastes requiring shielding; includes ion
exchange columns, filters, filter cartridges and
bulk resins.

ISOTOPE - species of an atom with the same
number of protons in its nucleus as other iso-
topes of the same element, but differing in
the number of neutrons.

KILOWATT (kw) - a unit of electrical power
equal to 1,000 watts.

KILOWATTHOUR (kwh) - a unit of electrical
energy or work, equal to that done by one
kilowatt acting for one hour.

LOAD -electricity (peak power and energy)
consumed to meet customer electricity needs;
synonymous with customer load.

LOAD SHIFTING - a program designed to
redistribute demand throughout a time period
so as to use the power system more effectively
(e.g. encouraging off-peak and night-time use).
The total amount of electricity consumed is
not affected by load shifting.

LONG-TERM EFFECTS - those effects resulting
from the design, construction or maintenance
of a facility which persist long after restoration
activities have been carried out.

LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE - wastes
that do not normally require shielding. They
fall into two categories — compactible wastes,
which include cellulose and plastic trash; and
non-compactible wastes, including metallic
wastes (e.g. equipment, ash containers).
Mg (megagrams) - 10° grams or one million
grams.

MISA (Municipal Industrial Strategy for
Abatement) - a control program, introduced
by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
in 1986, aimed at the virtual elimination of
toxic contaminants in municipal and industrial
discharges into Ontario waterways. Specific
regulations are being developed for the electrical
generation sector (i.e., Ontario Hydro).
MOE- Ontario Ministry of the Environment-
MW (megawatts) - one million watts or one
thousand kilowatts. Itis a means of indicating
the power rating of equipment (e.g. electrical
power of a generator or thermal power of a
nuclear reactor).

NOBLE GASES - chemically inert gases. Fission
product noble gases consist of isotopes of
Xenon, Krypton and Argon-41 produced by
neutron activation of trace quantities of
Argon-40 in air.

NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE - a resource
that cannot be naturally replaced within a
reasonable period of time. Examples include
oil, natural gas, coal, uranium and metal min-
erals.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION (NUG) - elec-
trical generation in Ontario owned and operated
by electricity producers other than Ontario
Hydro; includes private and municipal utilities,
and private power producers.

NO, (nitric oxide) - a gas formed in great
part from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen
when combustion takes place under high tem-

peratures and pressures, as in internal com-

bustion engines. NO, is not itself a pollutant.
However, in the ambient air, it converts to
nitrogen dioxide (NO,), a major con-
tributor to photochemical smog or ozone.
Forms of NO, are precursors to acid rain and
greenhouse gases.

OFF-PEAK - power use outside of high demand

’ (peak) periods.

ONCE THROUGH COOLING (OTC) -

a method of providing condenser cooling
requirements for a thermal generating station.
Water enters the OTC system through an intake
tunnel or channel, is filtered and treated as
necessary, before entering the condenser and
being returned at an elevated temperature
to the source water body via a discharge
tunnel/channel. Water consumption is limited
to evaporative losses in the system. Discharge
temperatures are typically less than 15°C above
ambient water body temperature.
OPACITY - the degree of transparency of a
material. For example, low opacity would
indicate a high transparency. In water,
Opacity is measured by a parameter referred
to as turbidity.

PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) - synthetic
chlorinated hydrocarbons with properties of
low flammability and high chemical and thermal
stability. PCBs are used in the manufacture
of plastics and have been used in the electrical
industry as transformer and capacitor fluids.
PCBs are highly toxic to aquatic life, persist
in the environment for long periods of time,
and are biologically accumulative.

PEAK / PEAKING - the highest average load
during a time interval of specified duration,
e.g. 20 minutes, occurring during a given period
of time, e.g. in a day.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE - used fuel and low

and intermediate level nuclear waste derived

<Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations>
4

from the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation
and decommissioning of nuclear generating
stations. These materials have no foreseeable
value. Because they contain or are contaminated
with radioactivity, special measures are needed
to ensure radiation protection of workers and
the public.

RADIONUCLIDE - any nuclide (isotope of
an element) which is unstable and undergoes
natural radioactive decay.

RADON (Ra) - one of the chemical elements;
the isotope of mass 222 has an approximate
half-life of 38 seconds.

RCEPP (Royal Commission on Electric Power
Planning) - a 1970s commission set up to exam-
ine the long-range electric power planning
of Ontario Hydro.

RECYCLING - reuse of a waste product for 3 |

a beneficial purpose (e.g. using fly ash as an
additive in the cement industry.)
REDEVELOPMENT - reuse of an existing site
for a new generating facility; steps taken to
make possible the use of an existing hydraulic
resource beyond the expected life of the facility.
RENEWABLE RESOURCE - a resource where
supply can be replaced (naturally or with human
intervention) as it is used, or within a recoverable
time-frame. Examples include forests, water,
fisheries and hydroelectric generation.
RESOURCE - something that can be drawn
on to meet a need; in Plan Report, has particular
meaning with respect to primary energy
resources such as hydraulic, uranium, oil, natural
gas, solar, wind

ROW (Right-Of-Way) - the actual area required
by Ontario Hydro to construct and operate

an electrical transmission line.

SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction)-a process
in which nitrogen oxides are removed from

the flue gas of a fossil-fueled generating station
SCRUBBER -see FGD.

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS - those effects result-
ing from the design, construction or main-
tenance of a facility which are a direct result
of construction activities, are of limited duration

and can usually be eliminated through restora-

tion measures and/or natural processes.
SILTATION - a process whereby a river or
stream is filled or choked-up with silts so as
to impede the flow of water.
SO, (sulphur dioxide) —- a heavy, pungent,
colourless gas primarily formed by the com-
bustion of fossil fuels. SO. can damage the
mammalian respiratory tracts, as well as veg-
etation and materials. It is a major pollutant
resulting from fossil fuel (mainly coal) com-
bustion and a precursor to acid rain.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - economic
development which does not damage the envi-
ronment and “meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.”
_ TEMPERING - the process whereby condenser
discharged water is mixed with lake water to
reduce its temperature before returning to
the lake.
_ THERMAL DISCHARGE - the heat discharged
into water as a result of the condenser cool-
ing process involved in electrical generation
(see OTC).
THERMAL GENERATING STATION - fossil-
or nuclear-based generation.
Tg (Teragram)- 10!? grams or one trillion
grams.
TRACE ELEMENT - a chemical element (e.g.
iron, copper, zinc, etc.) which is present in
- only a minute quantity. The following elements
are the dominant trace elements associated
with fossil fuel combustion: Fluorine (Fl); Iron
. (Fe); Titanium (Ti); Bromine (Br); Boron
(B);and Barium (Ba).

TRF (Tritium Removal Facility) - a plant
designed to clean all tritiated heavy water (see
tritium) from the Darlington, Pickering and
Bruce nuclear generating stations.
TRITIUM - a radioactive form of hydrogen
that emits low energy radiation and is created
as a by-product of the fission process. It occurs
naturally in the upper atmosphere and is pro-
duced in heavy water moderated CANDU
nuclear reactors, when deuterium captures
a neutron. It has a half-life of approximately
12 years, and eventually becomes harmless
helium gas. Biologically, its half-life in the
human body is about 10 years, because of the
gradual replacement of body water by fluid
consumption. Heavy water that becomes
contaminated with tritium is called “tritiated
heavy water.”

TWh (terawatthour) - one terawatthour equals
one billion kilowatthours. Energy made available
by Ontario Hydro to Ontario customers in
1985 was about 116 TWh.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program)
-a program that was the product of the 1972
Stockholm Conference on the Environment
that stressed the importance of global envi-
ronmental protection.

URANIUM TAILINGS - the solid and liquid
wastes produced from the mining and mill-
ing of uranium. The principal wastes include
the solid mined rock from which the uran-
lum is taken and liquid effluents produced
through the milling process. These tailings
are naturally radioactive and include the natural
products of the uranium decay chain, such
as Uranium-234, Thorium-234, Radium-226
and Uranium-234.

UREA INJECTION - a post-combustion NO,
control technology that uses an aqueous solu-
tion, containing urea and/or chemical

enhancers, that is injected into the products

<Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations>
5

of combustion. Urea reacts with nitrogen oxides
in the combustion gas to form nitrogen gas,
water, and carbon dioxide. Excess urea degrades
to nitrogen, carbon dioxide and small amounts
of ammonia.

USED FUEL - nuclear fuel bundles that have
been irradiated in a reactor, and hence become
radioactive. They account for more than 99%
of the radioactivity m a nuclear plant.
WASTE - a general term that refers to both
conventional and radioactive wastes. See fly
and bottom ash, radioactive waste, uranium
tailings, and coal mining waste.

WATT (W) - a measure of electrical power,
1.e., a 100-watt lightbulb.

vx
St eee
= enor

ore

Piet,

APPENDIX A - NATURAL AND SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA - ASSUMPTIONS &
EMISSIONS

Appendix A - Natural and Social
Environment Evaluation Assumptions

Natural Environment

SO, and NOx control measures, required to
meet regulatory limits specified in Ontario
Regulation 281/87, are implemented in the
major supply cases and have been included
in the cost evaluation of the plans. Coal prices
included costs required for coal mine site man-
agement and rehabilitation.

Nuclear generation costs include station
decommissioning and long-term disposal of
used fuel.

Flue gas desulphurization (FGD) and selec-
tive catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment, or
equilavent NOx equipment, will be used for
fossil stations as required to ensure acid gas
emission levels do not exceed the limits of
Ontario Regulation 281/87.

A 20 percent reduction in (1987) CO, emis-
sions by 2005 is anticipated. A Federal-Provincial
accord on COs» emissions is expected within
the study period.

Atmospheric emissions from nuclear gen-
erating stations will be, on an average annual
basis, controlled to about one percent of the
Derived Emission Limits (DEL) set by the Atomic
Energy Control Board (AECB).

Installed FGD systems will be capable of
producing wallboard quality synthetic gypsum.

Non-utility generation (NUG) will be
primarily gas-fired with some hydraulic
development.
_ Darlington type cooling water systems (off-
shore intake and discharge) will be used for
all future stations on the Great Lakes

All used nuclear fuel produced during the
study period will ultimately be disposed in a
centralized nuclear fuel waste management
centre developed by AECL.

Plan comparisons are based on an evaluation
of potential environmental impacts associated
with energy production and/or capacity addi-
tions (1989 - 2014). Effects are assessed as
being largely proportional to emission level,
water or land use, or waste production.

“Typical” values, used for atmospheric emis-
sions, water use, land use and waste production,
are summarized in Table A-1. These are mainly
derived from a review of current and past system
planning and operating experience. Land area
estimates are based on typical site area require-
ments for fossil and nuclear stations and total
area flooded by new hydroelectric facilities.

Any new site is assumed to require 1000 ha

of land area.

A-1

Table A-1 Natural Environmental Analysis
Typical Factors Used for Calculation of Parameter Values

Parameter

A. Resource Use

Fuel
1. Coal - US Coal: (TWh x (3.413 x 105) / WCC Coal: (TWh x 4.689 x 105) Megagrams (Mg)
2. Oil TWh x (1.575 x 108) x {1.59 x 107) Gigaliters (GI)
3. Gas TWh x 24 | - Gigacubicmeters (Gms)
4. Uranium TWh x 19 Megagrams (Mg)
Water Use
1. Water (Cooling Water) Nuclear: TWh x (1.8 x 108) / Fossil: TWh x (7.0 x 107) Cubic Meters (m3)
2. Water (Mining) — Nuclear TWhpucissr X 27795 Cubic Meters (m3)
— Conventional TWhaogsi1 X 1515.15 Cubic Meters (m3)
3. Water (Generation) TWhhydroelectric X (1.0 x 108) Cubic Meters (m3)
Land Use : ;
1. Land (Mining) — Nuclear. TWhauciear X (6.81 (mine area) + TWHpuclear (1.197 (tailings)) Hectares (Ha)
— Fossil TWhiossit X 2.8 + (Mg Ash/FGD x 1.54 x 10-5) + (Mg limestone x 8 x 10-5) Hectares -(Ha)
2. Land (Generation related) New sites + New Transmission + Reservoir Flooded Losses Hectares ~ (Ha)
Other
1. Limestone (for FGD) TWh gcrubbed coal X (2-43 x 104) Megagrams (Mg)

B. Emissions / Effluents / Wastes

Atmospheric Emissions

1. $0, : Based on sulphur content of fossil fuel mix and scrubbing efficiencies Toray er.
2. NOx Based on fossil fuel mix and technology used Teragrams (Tg)
3. Total Acid Gas (SQ, + NOx). Teragrams (Tg)
4,C0, Based on mass of fossil fuel combustion Teragrams (Tg)
5. Radionuclides Cumulative releases of radiation from tritium, noble gases, |'3!, and particulates Curies (Ci)
6. Trace Elements (conventional) TWhiogsii X 5-29 x 102 (see appendix A-2) Gigagrams (Gg)

<Natural and Social Environmental Criteria - Assumptions & Emissions - Appendix A>
A-2

Table A-1_ Natural Environmental Analysis

(continued)

Approximated Factors Used for Calculation of Parameter Values

Parameter
Aquatic Effluents
1. Thermal Discharge
2. Radionuclides
3. Uranium Mining Effluent
4. Coal Mining Effluent

((TWhuctear X 2.12) + (TWheo¢,i) X 1.32)) x 3600
Based on cumulative releases of tritium and gross beta emissions
TWhpuclear X 2779.5
TWh si X 1515.15

Wastes oe :
1. Coal Ash pee US coal used x .0741 + WC coal used x .1114
2. FGD Wastes - Scrubbed Coal TWh x 46111
3. Used Nuclear Fuel TWhiuciear X 19
4. Low Level Radioactive Waste Wh x7.6—
5. Uranium Mine Tailings TWH nuclear X 11970

6. Total Wastes

Sum of wastes 1 thru 5

Terajoules
Curies
Megagrams

Megagrams

Megagrams.

Megagrams
Megagrams
Megagrams

Megagrams

(Tj)
(Ci)
(Mg)
(Mg)

(Mg)
(Mg)
(Mg)
(Mg)
(Mg)

Social Evaluation Assumptions

Maximizing employee opportunities for |
- local workers, rather than importing a large |

: number of workers from other geographic

- areas of the province or Canada, is preferred. :
: This helps to reduce the adverse effects of a :
population influx on local facilities and services
: and helps ensure that the area that experiences :
: adverse effects also receives employment and :

: investment benefits.

Regional development is desirable. Regional
: development in northern Ontario is pre- :
: ferred over regional development in south- ~

: central Ontario.

Impacts on the size and service infrastructure
: ofacommunity should be minimized or offset —

: by appropriate mitigation such as community :

- impact grants.

Peoples’ perceptions of the risks associated
with the various components of the alternative 2
plans will negatively affect their sense of security :
within their own community. :
The benefits and risks of the alternative :

plans should be equally shared.

A-3

Table A-2. Trace Element Emissions

(Basis: 500 MW, 100% MCR, 170 Mg Coal/h)

Emission Factor* Emission Rate

Element | . g/Mg Coal g/h
Antimony Sb 0.03 5:1
Arsenic As 0.52 88.4
Barium Ba 1.80 306.0
Berylium Be 0.01 Tk
Boron B 1.90 323.0
Bromine : Br 13.42 2281.4 -
Cadmium Cd 0.02 3.4
Chromium Cr ei OSU, ee. ; 51.0
Cobalt Co 0.07 11.9
Copper Cu : ; 0.15 pe S265
Flourine F 61.07 10381.9
Jron Fe 51.06 2 BORK
Lead Pb 0.25 42.5
Manganese Mn 0.50 : =. 850°
Mercury Hg 0.32 54.4
Nickel Ni : 0.30 ee. 51.0:
Selenium Se 0.59 100.3
Silver Ag : 0.02 3.4
Titanium Ti 22.03 3745.1
Vanadium V 0.30 51.0
Zinc Zn 1.00 170.0
Thorium Th . 0.01 ee
Uranium U 0.008 1.32

Total 155.678 26465.22

* Emission factors derived from Ontario Hydro research studies.

<Natural and Social Environmental Criteria - Assumptions & Emissions - Appendix A>
A-4

APPENDIX B -— ALTERNATIVE PLANS -
COMMON ELEMENTS

- Common Components
: Each of the three Demand/Supply Plans is
designed to attain the maximum economic :
contribution from the common components. 2
The contributions of the common components

: are presented below.

: Demand Management Plan

7 ¢ Electrical Efficiency Improvements adopted
2 over the planning period reduce peak power :
: and energy requirements by the amounts shown :
- in Table B-1.
* Load Shifting programs adopted over :
the planning period reduce peak power 7
requirements by the amounts shown in ;
Table B-2. Load shifting does not reduce ener- :
gy requirements. :
* Capacity Interruptible Loads reduce peak 7
power requirements by the amounts shown 2
: in Table B-3. Interruptible loads do not reduce :
: energy requirements.
: ¢ The total impact of demand management :
is shown in Table B-4 :

- Non-Utility Generation Plan
: ¢ Demand Displacement NUGs reduce peak :
power and energy requirements by the amounts
shown in Table B-5.

period increase supply capacity and energy :
by the amounts shown in Table B-6. :
¢ The total Non-Utility Generation contribution
over the planning period in terms of net installed

: capacity and annual energy is shown in :
: Table B-7.

| Rehabilitation Plan

¢ The Rehabilitation Plan involves programs
to rehabilitate hydraulic, fossil and nuclear |

: facilities to ensure maximum use is made of |

existing facilities. The Rehabilitation Plan will 2
include work on more than 20 GW of existing
generating facilities over the plan period. 7
¢ The main elements of the plan are:

Hydraulic
¢ Small Hydro Assessment & Retrofit Program;
¢ Turbine Upgrade Program;

: ¢ Process Control Improvement Program;

¢ Dam Safety Assessment Program.

; Fossil
- ¢ Acid Gas Reduction;

¢ Lakeview Rehabilitation;
¢ Lambton Rehabilitation;

<Alternative Plans-Common Elements - Appendix B>
B-1

Table B—1_ Electrical Efficiency

Improvements
Peak Power Reduction (MW)

Year Load Forecast
End Lower Median
2000 1600 2000
2014 2475 3400

Annual Energy Reduction (TWh)

Year Load Forecast
End Lower Median
2000 8.0 10.0
2014 12.4 17.0

Upper
2500
4250

Upper
12.5
21.2

Table B-2 Load Shifting
Peak Power Reduction (MW)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
2000 800 1000 1200
2014 1080 1280 1480

Table B-3 Capacity Interruptible Loads
Peak Power Reduction (MW)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
1988* 763 763 763
2000 599 702 798
2014 771 890 976

“actual

Table B-4 Total Demand Management

Demand Reduction *
Peak Power Reduction (MW)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
1988 763 763 763
2000 2999 3702 4498
2014 4326 5570 6706

*Includes 763 MW of Capacity Interruptible Loads in effect in
December 1988.

Annual Energy Reduction (TWh)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
2000 8.0 10.0 12.5
2014 12.4 17.0 21.2

Table B-5 Demand Displacement

Non-Utility Generation
Peak Power Reduction — (MW)

Year Load Forecast
End Lower Median Upper
2000 342 403 ze
2014 382 456 B22 2
Annual Energy Reduction (TWh)

Load Forecast
Year Lower Median Upper
2000 2.7 3.0 Si
2014 3.0 3.4 4.1

38,

<Alternative Plans-Common Elements - Appendix B>
B-2

10
Hydraulic Plan

: The Hydraulic Plan includes redevelopments, :

Nuclear

: ¢ Fuel Channel Rehabilitation;
e Nuclear Plant Life Assurance;
* Pickering Output Increase.

Manitoba Purchase
e All plans include a firm purchase of 1000 MW :
from Manitoba, beginning in 1998. It provides
energy and capacity as shown in Table B-8. :

extensions or new developments (Table B-9)

In terms of capacity, the Hydraulic Plan provides:
15 ¢ 1209 MW by the end of year 2000; and :
_ © 9849 MW by 2014. :
In terms of energy, the Hydraulic Plan provides: :
© 3.0 TWh of energy in 2000; and
_ © 5.8 TWh of energy in 2014. :
The Hydraulic Plan is the same under all :

: forecast.

Table B-6 Purchase

Non-Utility Generation

*Net Installed Capacity (MW)

Year )
End Lower
2000 435
2014 864
*Net of NUG retirements.

Annual Energy (TWh)
Year Lower
2000 3.0
2014 5.8

Load Forecast
Median —_ Upper
932 1133
1522 1660

Load Forecast
Median Upper
6.4 16
10.3 11.2

Table B-7 Total Non-Utility Generation
Net Installed Capacity (MW)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
2000 7197 1358 1632
2014 1268 2004 2212
Annual Energy (TWh)

Year Load Forecast

End Lower Median Upper
2000 af) 9.4 11.3
2014 8.8 ich) 15.3

Table B-8 Manitoba Purchase

Period
(Nov 1 - Oct 31)
1998 — 2000
2000 — 2001
2001 — 2002
2002 — 2003
2003 — 2018
2018 — 2020
2020 — 2021
2021 — 2022

Capacity

(MW)

200
400
600
1000
1000
800

600

400

Annual
Energy
(TWh)
1.4

3.0

6.8

7.0

5.6

4.2

2.8

B-3

Table B-9 Hydraulic Plan

Incremental Flooding
Developement Installed Annual Energy Required
Site Type Capacity (MW) (AV.MW) (ha)
Lake Gibson New 5 5 Nil
Big Chute Red 10 7 Nil
Mattagami Complex |
Kipling Ext 68 7 Nil
Smoky Falls Red 182 58 | 35
Harmon Ext 68 11 Nil
Little Long Ext 61 8 2 Nil
Four Sites Combined 379 | 87 35
Little Jackfish New 132 65 2571
Queenston (SAB-3) — Ext 550 | 165 Nil
Abitibi Complex
Abitibi Canyon Ext 463 13 Nil
Otter Rapids Ext 174 5 Nil
Nine Mile Rapids New 295 83 473
Three Sites Combined : 932 101 473
Renison New 275 131 440
Grey Goose Island 326 3
Ragged Chute Red 98 20 : 245
Patten Post New 250 43 4082 :
Blacksmith Rapids New 140 | 42 | 801
Sand & Allen Rapids New 262 : 80 0

New = New Development
Ext = Extension to existing site
Red = Redevelopement of existing site

<Alternative Plans-Common Elements - Appendix B>
B-4

mr: See

APPENDIX G — SUMMARY OF TYPICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

Table C-1 Fossil (Conventional Steam Cycle — CSC)

| Component : Potential Effects Potential Mitigation
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

: Resource Use:

Fuel > Coal - use lower sulphur coal.
- non-renewable
- plentiful supply (short to medium term).
- supplied from: Sask.; Alta.; B.C.; Penn., and; W.Va.

Land Use - coal mining - mine site rehabilitation
- waste disposal (coal ash and scrubber wastes) - recycle/re-use wastes (i.e. scrubber wastes for

gypsum board production or other useful by-product).

- generating station site. - use of existing site.
- transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-Of-Way where possible.
_ Water Use - cooling water intake/discharge effects - Intake: fish diversions, fish screens, offshore sub
- evaporative losses (consumptive use) less than merged intake.
1% of cooling water flows. - Discharge: tempering, offshore submerged discharge,

monitoring of discharge temperature, cooling
towers, use of expended thermal energy for more

productive purposes (i.e. heat for aquaculture).

‘Emissions/Effluents/Waste:
Air Combustion Emissions:
- Boiler Combustion Emissions
- sulphur dioxide. - fuel selection, scrubbers, coal washing.
- nitrogen oxides - boiler design and operation: low excess air, minimize
combustion temperatures, urea injection, selective
catalytic reduction (SCR)

- particulates - fuel selection (low ash); electrostatic precipitators;

bag houses; gravity settling chambers in ducts.

- trace elements - fuel selection.

- carbon dioxide - fuel selection

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C=1

Table C-1 Fossil (Conventional Steam Cycle — CSC) (cont'd)

Component Potential Effects

- Combustion Turbine Emissions (S05, NOy, particulate)

from coal extraction and transport.

- Adverse dispersion conditions

Non-Combustion Emissions:
- Fuel transport, handling, and storage emissions

(fugitive coal dust).

- Ash handling, transport and storage (fugitive dust).

Water - inadvertent discharges or spills.

- coal pile drainage.

- ash pile drainage.

Waste - fly ash and bottom ash.

- screenhouse wastes.

- sludge materials from water and effluent
treatment facilities.

- operation trash, refuse and garbage.

- scrubber wastes.

- PCB wastes from old/existing transformer

sites/facilities.

Potential Mitigation

- fuel selection; stack and diffuser; high exhaust
temperature and velocity; minimal operation.

- possible supplementary control measures: fuel

switching or load

- dust control during rail transport and unloading;
shielded or enclosed conveyors; surface wetting of
coal piles; coal pile design/contouring.

- closed transfer of flyash from precipitators to silos:
dust suppression at silo discharge for truck or conveyor
transport to disposal site; regular covering and
possible landscaping at disposal site; buffer areas.

- provide collection and containment facilities for
storage and handling of hazardous materials where
appropriate; contingency plans for recovery
and environmental protection.

- treatment (neutralization).

- collection and treatment; re-use / recycle.

- re-use/recycle (i.e. cement additive, backfill, pit and
quarry rehabilitation). :

- approved ash disposal site, lined with impermeable
material for ground water protection (if required):
drainage to liquid waste management system;
regular compaction and.covering.

- waste disposal site.

- waste disposal site; possibly to ash disposal
site for dust control.

- waste disposal site; possibly controlled incineration.

- re-use/recycle (i.e. production of wallboard quality
gypsum, use in cement, backfill, etc.).

- approved handling and storage.

C-2

Table C-1 Fossil (Conventional Steam Cycle — CSC) (cont'd)

Component

- $0CI0-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment

Regional Development

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle

Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects

- significant employment contribution, direct and indirect.
- local hiring higher in south, in proximity to major centres.

- northern projects would require influx of project workers.

- significant effect, particularly in north or less

developed regions.

- depends on size, capacity, infrastructure or
existing community.
- also depends on proximity to major centres, past
experience with development, compatibility
with existing industry.
- moderate impacts for existing sites with infrastructure,
labour force.
- potentially high level for new, remote or northern site.
- potential impacts on:
- community infrastructure and facilities,
- community services,
- administration and finance,
- recreation and tourism,

- transportation facilities and services.

- concerns re air quality, acid and greenhouse gases

- environment, health,recreation, agriculture,

forestry, historical preservation interests.

- coal, ash and FGD waste-handling may affect
character of area.
- concerns re emissions may affect lifestyles.

- influx of project workers may affect community character.

- local effects of operations and emissions may

be regarded as inequitable.

- coal is least preferred among major supply options.

Potential Mitigation
- initiatives to increase local-regional hiring
(e.g. training, apprenticeship programs).

- initiatives for local participation and benefits.

- community impact monitoring.
- community impact agreements for mitigation,

grants, etc...

- = community liaison.

- ash utilization.

- meet or better emission regulations.
- acid gas control technology.
- information programs.

- monitoring programs.

- acid gas control technology.

- construction camp for remote or northern site.

- enhancement of local benefits.

- liaison and information.

- information/education programs on role of fossil generation.

C-3

Table C-2. \Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)

Component Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3

- Resource Use: :

: Fuel Coal - trend to lower sulphur coal.
- non-renewable
- potential short to medium term supply.
- supplied from: Sask.; Alta.; B.C.; Penn., and; W.Va.

Land Use - coal mining - mine site rehabilitation

- waste disposal - recycle/re-use wastes
- generating station site. - use of existing site.
- transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-Of-Way where possible.
Water Use - cooling water intake/discharge effects - Intake: fish diversions, fish screens, offshore
- evaporative losses (consumptive use) less than submerged intake.
1% of cooling water flows. - Discharge: tempering, offshore submerged dis -

charge, monitoring of discharge temperature, cooling —
towers, use of expended thermal energy for more

productive purposes (i.e. heat for aquaculture). se

| Emissions/Effluents/Waste:
: Air Combustion Emissions:
- Boiler Combustion Emissions:
- sulphur dioxide - inherently low SO» emissions - little or no mitigation required.
- nitrogen oxides - boiler design and operation: low excess air, minimize
combustion temperatures, urea injection, selective

catalytic reduction (SCR).

- trace elements - fuel selection
- carbon dioxide - fuel selection.
- Combustion Turbine Emissions - fuel selection; stack and diffuser; high exhaust

temperature and velocity; minimal operation.
- Adverse dispersion conditions - possible supplementary control measures: fuel

switching or load reduction, if required.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
c-4

Table C-2 \ntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) (cont'd)

Component

Water

Waste

- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment

Regional Development

Potential Effects
Non-Combustion Emissions:
- Fuel transport, handling, and storage emissions

(fugitive coal dust).

- slag handling, transport and storage - fugitive dust

- inadvertent discharges or spills.

- coal pile drainage.

- slag pile drainage.

- screenhouse wastes

- sludge materials from water and effluent
treatment facilities

- operation trash, refuse and garbage.

- slurry wastes.

- moderate due to smaller scale.
- modular or staged development may reduce peaks
and extend employment over longer schedule.
- local hiring higher in south in proximity to major centres.

- northern project may require influx of project workers.

- moderate due to smaller scale.
- significance for new sites depends on size and location.
- more significant regional development for

northern locations.

Potential Mitigation

- dust control during rail transport and unloading;
shielded or enclosed conveyors; surface wetting
or coal piles; pile design/contouring.

- regular covering and possible landscaping

at disposal site; buffer zones.

- provide collection and containment facilities for
storage and handling of hazardous materials where
appropriate, contingency plans for recovery
and environmental protection.

- treatment (neutralization).

- collection and treatment; re-use / recycle.

waste disposal site.

- waste disposal site; possibly to isposal site for

dust control.
- waste disposal site; possibly controlled incineration.

- re-use/recycle.

- initiatives to increase local and regional hiring
on northern projects (e.g. training,

apprenticeship programs).

- initiatives for local hiring and economic benefit

(e.g. local purchasing policies).

c-5

Component

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle
Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Table C-2 \ntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) (cont'd)

Potential Effects
- limited for small projects at existing sites to significant

for major new IGCC at new site.

- potential impacts on:

- community infrastructure and facilities.
- community services.

- administration and finance.

- transportation facilities and services.

- depends on size, capacity, infrastructure of
local communities,

- also depends on proximity to major centres, past
experience with development, compatibility with
existing industry.

- modular or staged development may reduce pressure

on community facilities.
- concerns about air quality and emissions among
environmental, health, recreation, agriculture, forestry

and historical preservation interests.

- limited for small facilities on existing sites.

- may be significant for major IGCC projects on new sites.

- local effects of operations (emissions and coal handling)

may be considered inequitable.

- natural gas preferred among major supply options.

Potential Mitigation

- community impact monitoring.
- impact management programs.
- community impact agreements for major projects.

- community liaison.

- meet or better emission regulations.
- monitoring programs.

- information programs.

- impact management programs.

- emergency preparedness programs.

- enhancement of local benefits.

- community liaison.

- N/A

C-6

@ Table C-3 Nuclear (CANDU) |

: Component Potential Effects Potential Mitigation
_ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
: Resource Use:
: Fuel Uranium:
- non-renewable.
- plentiful supply (approx. 442,000 tonnes in Canada).

- indigenous supply in Ontario, also supplied

from Sask.
Land Use - uranium mining - mine site rehabilitation.
- tailings disposal : - disposal at mine site with underwater
containment of tailings. é
: - 2 km buffer zone around tailing disposal sites.
| - generating site development. - 1 km exclusion zone (regulated by AECB);
- used fuel and low level radwaste storage/disposal. use of existing site.
- on-site storage - long-term disposal site for used
; fuel being sought (concept assessment in progress).
) : _ > transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-Of-Way where possible.
Water Use - cooling water intake/discharge effects - Intake: fish diversions, fish screens, offshore sub
- evaporative losses (consumptive use) less than merged intake.
1% of cooling water flows. - Discharge: tempering, offshore submerged discharge,
; monitoring of discharge temperature, cooling
towers, use of expended thermal energy for more
productive purposes (i.e. heat for aquaculture).
_ Emissions/Effluents/Waste:
Fs SALT - Potential Radioactive Releases - 1 km exclusion zone around reactors required by AECB.
Typical emissions include: - 1% derived emission limit (DEL) operating target
- tritium (As Low As Reasonably Achievable - ALARA).
- noble gases
- lodine (1134)
- particulates
- hydrogen sulphide (H9S) - heavy water production. - flaring, population density restrictions out to 8km.
4 - reactor building and reactor auxiliary bay - incremental operation of BNPD Heavy Water Plant
exhausts (incl. off-gas systems). - continuous filtering and monitoring of stacks and exhaust. :

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C-7

Table C-3 Nuclear (CANDU) (cont'd)

: Component Potential Effects Potential Mitigation
: - service building exhausts (incl. used - continuous filtering of contaminated exhausts.
(irradiated) fuel bay). (
- ancillary service bldg. exhausts (incl. radwaste - continuous filtering.
management and D20 upgrading) .
- releases during transportation of radioactive materials. - stringent container design and shipment regulations.
- postulated emergency conditions. - Safety systems:
- emergency reactor shutdown.
- containment (incl. vacuum bldg.).
- emergency preparedness planning (i.e. evacuation
plans) regulated by Ontario Solicitor General.
Non-Radioactive Emissions:
- combustion turbine emissions (S09, NO,, particulate} - fuel selection; stack and diffuser; high exhaust.
temperature and velocity; limited operation.
Potential Radioactive Releases:
- tritium - 1% DEL operating target (ALARA).
- tritium removal facility (TRF) at Darlington site.

Water Non-Radioactive Releases:

- inadvertent discharges or spills. - provide collection and containment facilities for :
storage and handling of hazardous materials where : |
appropriate; contingency plans for recovery and
environmental protection.

- interface between radioactive and - periodic sampling of secondary system for radioactivity

non-radioactive systems. and D20 leakage; in-line leak detection monitors at
major 020 / H20 interfaces. ;
Waste Radioactive Solid Materials:
- used/irradiated fuel - irradiated fuel management plan - long term disposal
concept under review by AECL.
_- on-site storage.
- low and medium level wastes - waste management plan.

- low level radioactive waste storage at BNPD
regulated by AECB.

Non-Radioactive wastes:

- screenhouse wastes - approved waste disposal sites.
- sludge materials - approved handling and storage.
- Operation trash, refuse and garbage. - CFC phase out

- CFC’s in dry cleaning area.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
c-8

@ Table C-3 Nuclear (CANDU) (cont'd)

Component Potential Effects : Potential Mitigation

- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
3 Employment - major employment contribution, direct and indirect. - initiatives to increase local and regional

~~ local hiring higher in south, in proximity to major centres. hiring (e.g. training and apprenticeship programs).
- northern projects will require influx of project
and indirect workers.
e Regional Development - major effect, particularly in north or - initiatives for local participation and benefits
less developed region (e.g. local purchase policies).
- Opportunity for heat-energy project.

Local Community Impact ~ - depends on size, capacity, infrastructure of - community impact monitoring.

local communities. - community impact agreements for mitigation,
~~ also depends on proximity to major centres, past grants, etc..
experience with development, compatibility = community liaison.
with existing industry. - construction camp for remote or northern sites.

- impacts moderate for existing sites with
= infrastructure, labour force.
: : - impacts potentially significant for sites in less

developed areas.

- potential impacts on:
- community infrastructure and facilities
- community services
- administration and finance
- recreation and tourism
- transportation facilities and services

‘Special / Sensitive Interests - emission, waste management and safety concerns for - information programs.

environment, community, health and safety, - monitoring programs,
recreation interests. - emergency preparedness.

5 eee - Native, environmental, recreation interests for
northern sites.

‘y Lifestyle ered perceived health and safety risks may affect ~ local programs for liaison and information.

lifestyle and perception of community,
_- large influx of project workers may change character - impact management programs to reduce adverse impacts.
of surrounding communities. - emergency preparedness programs.

- health monitoring studies.

Distribution of Risks & Benefits ~- potential perception of inequitable risk for - enhance local benefits.
| ‘residents in vicinity of facilities. - liaison and information.
- concerns re effects of waste management - commitment to waste disposal program.

‘ on future generations.
Social Acceptance - among supply options, less preferred than gas, - information/education on role of nuclear

ey. Racks more than coal power generation.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation ~ Appendix C>
c-9

Table C-4 Combined Cycle Plants (CC's)

: Component Potential Effects
: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
: Resource Use:
: Fuel - Natural Gas / Oil
- short - medium term supply.
- non-renewable
Land Use - large land-use involved in gas and petroleum

extraction/refinement.
- generating site.
- transmission incorporation.

- pipeline Right-of-Way.

- Emissions/Effluents/Waste:
Air Combustion Emissions:
- sulphur dioxide

- nitrogen oxides.

- carbon monoxide.
- trace elements.
- carbon dioxide.

- Adverse dispersion conditions.

Non-Combustion Emissions:
- high NO, release from pump compressors.
- fuel transport, handling and storage emissions

(oil vapour).

Water - inadvertent discharges or spills.

Potential Mitigation

- use existing generating site.
- use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- fuel selection (low sulphur).
- boiler design and operation; low excess air, minimize
combustion temperatures, urea injection,

selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

-fuel selection
- fuel selection (gas preferred).
- possible supplementary control measures;

fuel switching or load reduction, if required.

- special rail cars or possibly pipeline delivery;

closed storage tanks.

- dykes around hazardous materials storage facilities.

- provide collection and containment facilities for
storage and handling of hazardous materials where
appropriate; contingency plans for recovery and

environmental protection.

Cc -10

Table C-4_ Combined Cycle Plants (CC’s) (cont'd)

Component

Waste

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment
Regional Development

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle
Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- disposal of operation fluids (i.e. lubricants coolants). - separate collection and drainage systems.

- screenhouse wastes. - waste disposal site.

- sludge materials from water and effluent - waste disposal site; possibly to ash disposal
treatment facilities. site for dust control.

- operation trash, refuse and garbage. - waste disposal site; possibly controlled incineration.

- PCB wastes from old/existing transformer - approved handling and storage.

sites/facilities.

- limited due to smaller scale. - initiatives for local hiring (e.g. training).
- modular or staged development may reduce peaks
and extend employment over longer schedule.
- limited to moderate due to smaller scale - initiatives for local economic benefit
- significance for new sites depends on (e.g. local purchasing policies).

size and location.

- limited for small projects at existing sites to - community impact monitoring.
significant for major new CC at new site. - impact management programs.
- potential impacts on: ns community impact agreements for major projects.
- community infrastructure and facilities. - community liaison.

- community services.
- administration and finance.
- transportation facilities and services.

- depends on size, capacity, infrastructure of
local community. :

- also depends On proximity to major centres, past
experience with development, compatiblity with
existing industry.

- modular or staged development may reduce pressure

on community facilities.

- concerns about air quality and emissions among - meet or better emission regulations.
environmental, health, recreation, agriculture, forestry - monitoring programs.
and historical preservation interests. - information programs.

- limited for small facilities on existing sites. - impact management programs.

- may be significant for major projects on new sites. - emergency preparedness programs.

- local effects of operations may be - enhancement of local benefits.
considered inequitable. - community liaison

- natural gas preferred among major supply options. - N/A

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C-11

Table C-5 Combustion Turbine Units (CTU’s)

Component
: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
' Resource Use:

Fuel

Land Use

Water Use

- Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:

Air

Water

Waste

Potential Effects

- refined fossil fuels (oil, gas, diesel fuel).
- non-renewable

- short - medium term supply.

- large land-use involved in gas and petroleum
extraction/refinement.

- generating site.

- pipeline Right-of-Way

- transmission incorporation.

- none

Combustion Emissions:
- carbon monoxide
- NO,
- C0»
Non-Combustion Emissions:
- high SOx release during natural gas extraction.
- high NOx release from pump compressors.
- fuel transport, handling and storage

emissions/losses.

- inadvertent spills.

- disposal of operation fluids (i.e. lubricants, coolants}
- operation trash, refuse, garbage.
- PCB wastes from old/existing transformer

sites/facilities. -

Potential Mitigation

- use existing fossil generating station sites
where possible.
- use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- air cooled

- NO, controls.

- fuel selection (gas preferred).

- oil vapour: special rail cars or possibly

pipeline delivery; closed storage tanks. —

- dykes around fuel storage facilities.

- provide collection and containment facilities
for storage and handling of hazardous materials
where appropriate; contingency plans for recovery

and environmental protection.

- separate collection and drainage systems.
- approved waste disposal site; controlled incineration.

- approved handling and storage.

Cc -12

Table C-5 Combustion Turbine Units (CTU’s) (cont'd)

Component
- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Employment

Regional Development

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle
Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects

- limited due to smaller scale.
- little effect for CTU’s at existing sites.
- modular or staged development may reduce peaks

and extend employment over longer schedule.

- limited to moderate due to smaller scale

- significance for new sites depends on size and location.

- limited for small projects at existing sites to
significant for major CTU at new site.
- potential impacts on:
- community infrastructure and facilities
- community services
- administration and finance
- modular or staged development may reduce pressure

on community facilities.
- concerns about air quality and emissions among
environmental, health, recreation, agriculture,

forestry and historical preservation interests

- limited for small facilities on existing sites.

- may be significant for major projects on new sites

- local effects of operations may be

considered inequitable.

- natural gas preferred among major supply options

Potential Mitigation

- none required.

- initiatives for local hiring and economic benefit.

community impact monitoring.
- impact management programs.
- community impact agreements for major projects.

- community liaison,

- meet or better emission regulations.
- monitoring programs.

- information programs.

- impact management programs.

- enhancement of local benefits.

- community liaison.

- N/A

C-13

Table C-6 Hydraulic

- Component
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
- Resource Use:

Fuel

Land Use

Water Use

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:

Air

Water

Potential Effects Potential Mitigation
5
- water resources - water rental payments to Ontario Government
- renewable (approximately $90 M across the system in 1988).
- generation site (including flooding to - wildlife relocation, afforestation to replace flooded
establish reservoirs). vegetation, resource extraction prior to flooding, 10 |

compensation for flood loss, relocation of affected

structures/land-uses, redevelop existing sites with

existing reservoirs.

- access roads. - minimize clearing, use of existing roads, minimize
road size.

- aggregate supply. - use of on-site material, restore borrow areas.

- transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- non-consumptive (see Fuel).

- local air quality deterioration (i.e. construction dust, - controlled waste timber/vegetation burning,
slash/vegetation burning). minimize site clearing, road spraying.

- initial reservoir filling. - slow consistent filling rate; winter filling.

- altered flow regimes. - channel modifications (i.e. widening, deepening),

minimize head and modifications.

- increased erosion. minimize site clearing, bank stabilization
(i.e. vegetation, rip-rap), channel modification,
flow regulation, buffer zones along banks.

- water quality effects. - manage flow to minimize temporary flooding effects;
reservoir preparation planning (i.e. vegetation
clearing to minimize nutrient and methyl / mercury
release); monitoring, erosion control, sediment control

(i.e. settling ponds).

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
G= 14

: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Component Potential Effects
- destruction of aquatic habitat/fish stock degradation.
- wetlands
Waste — - construction wastes (i.e. oils, fuel).

- operation trash, refuse and garbage.
- headpond debris.

- excavation material.

Employment - significant but short term for individual sites.
- some indirect employment for individual sites.
- major significance for river basin development.
- major indirect employment for river basin development.
: Regional Development. - moderate regional development for individual sites.

- significant regional development for river basin.
- northern projects may provide electrification and
access needed for development.
Local Community Impact - potentially significant impacts of in-moving
population for northern, remote projects.
- potential impacts on:
- community infrastructure and facilities
- community services
- administration and finance
- transportation facilities and services
- depends on size, capacity, infrastructure of
local communities.
- also depends on proximity to population centres,
past experience with development
- long-term effect for Moose River Basin on all

aspects of communities.

Potential Mitigation

- timing of activities (i.e. avoid spawning periods);
reservoir preparation plan for habitat protection;
maintain instream flows; protect spawning
areas; habitat enhancement; stocking headponds.

- avoid wetlands, dyking,

- dyke storage areas, emergency clean-up procedures.
- approved disposal sites.

- reservoir clearing, reservoir sweeping.

- approved disposal.area, utilize in dam

construction where possible.

- Hydro / trade union / government cooperation and
initiatives for local hiring, training, qualifying

for northern projects.

- Hydro / government initiatives for local purchasing,

local business development.

- construction camps for northern / remote sites.
- community impact agreements.
- impact monitoring.

- impact management programs.

C-15

7 Table C-6. Hydraulic (cont'd) :

Component Potential Effects
Special / Sensitive Interests - Native People: land claims, land use, lifestyle,
employment, subsistence hunting and fishing.
- cottagers, recreation, water users affected

by flow or quality.

- tourism for northern rivers, Niagara Development.

Lifestyle - change in northern lifestyles, particularly

for Native People.

Distribution of Risks & Benefits. - northern and Native People may be inequitably
affected unless opportunities to share

in the benefits.

Social Acceptance - high preference for hydraulic among
supply options.
- high preference for rehabilitating / improving

existing facilities.

Potential Mitigation
- negotiations / agreements on participation, mitigation.
- operations controls, engineering to avoid
adverse impacts.
- scheduling of activities.

- health monitoring where mercury a potential problem.

- construction camps.

- initiatives for local participation in project.

initiatives to ensure and enhance local and

regional benefits.

- N/A

C - 16

20 :

Fuel

Land Use

_ Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:

Air

Water

Waste

Aesthetics

Component
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
- Resource Use:

~ Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- electricity (derived from hydraulic generation)
from Manitoba and/or Quebec.

- renewable resource

- transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.
(will need additional transmission facilities for any - prudent Right-of-Way planning and routing process.
project >750 MW in Quebec or >200 MW in Manitoba). - narrow-based towers to reduce land displacements in

critical areas, bury lines in certain sensitive areas.

- electromagnetic field effects. - wider Right-of-Way’s, higher towers, reduce
line voltage,
- noise from transformers. - larger buffer zones, screening, landscaping,

site contouring.

- improved sound enclosures,

- potential impacts on nearby wells from > pre-construction water well monitoring and
construction activities. test programs. :
- herbicides for vegetation control. - pre and post-application water monitoring and

test programs.

- controlled use of herbicides / pesticides: cut
vegetation mechanically; selective application
(hand release); proper storage and disposal

of containers.

- sediment control. - vegetation. sediment control, site contouring.
- construction wastes - approved method of transport and disposal site.
- towers and lines - tower design (colour, shape), bury / screening

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C-17

2 Table C-7' Purchases (cont'd} :

: Component

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
- Local Socio-Economic Effects
Employment

Regional Development

Local Community Impact

: Societal Considerations

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle

Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects

- mainly in exporting province.

- jimited to effects of transmission construction.

- limited to transmission impacts in Ontario.

> may be significant in exporting provinces,

particularly northern and native communities

- Native people affected in exporting province.

- agriculture, recreation, resource interests
affected by transmission.

- labour and business concerns re transfer of

employment and economic benefits.

little or no effect in Ontario
- may be significant in areas affected by hydraulic

projects in Manitoba or Quebec.

- environmental and community impacts in other

provinces may be considered inequitable

- preference for hydraulic generation.

- concerns about export of jobs, reliability.

Potential Mitigation

- N/A

- initiatives for local hiring and economic

benefits on transmission.

- transmission routing to avoid or reduce

disruption and displacement.

- support appropriate mitigation by exporting province.

- impact management programs by exporting province.

- support mitigation by exporting province.

- encourage programs for local participation

and impact management in exporting province. —

- N/A

C-18

ee th

Table C-8 Demand Management

: Component
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
- Resource Use:

Fuel

Land Use

Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:

Air

Water
Waste

- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment

Regional Development
Local Community Impact
Special / Sensitive Interests
Lifestyle

Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- reduces fuel consumption.

- defers the need for development of additional supply.

- affects fuel consumption pattern - allows more
optimal use of cleaner resources.

- raw materials for building insulation.

- potential degraded interior air quality (e.g. radon, - improved ventilation (air exchange) systems
formaldehyde, combustion by-products, CFCs). in residences and other buildings.
- reduce the use of building materials which

contain offending pollutants (e.g. asbestos)

- N/A
- disposal of phased out, less efficient appliances - disposal in an approved landfill site.
and equipment. - recycle parts, rehabilitate existing appliances
and equipment (improve efficiency).
- remove and store toxic constituents (e.g. PCB's, CFC’s).
- high employment but dispersed regionally and - none required.

among sectors.

- little or none because of distributed nature. - none required.
- little direct impact because distributed. - incentives/savings may offset increased cost of
- standards, building codes, etc., may affect pace energy-efficient housing.

and cost of housing development.
- some groups may have less access to programs. - range of programs.
- high energy costs could affect low income,

industrial customers.

- time of use may affect energy-use pattern, including - encourage use of timers and devices to shift load
household activities, increased shift work. without inconvenience.
- high-efficiency equipment will - none required for increased efficiency.

have little or no effect.

- if unavailable or access difficult for some groups, - range of programs.
may be inequitable costs and benefits. - incentives to make accessible.

- high preference for voluntary programs - information/education on demand
with incentives. management practices.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
Cc -19

Table C—9 Non Utility Generation (NUG) - Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

: Component Potential Effects - Potential Mitigation
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

: Resource Use:

: Fuel - municipal solid wastes (household trash, plastics,

organics, etc.).

Land Use - facility site
- refuse storage - ensure high turn-over rates with minimal
on-site storage requirements.
- ash disposal - recycle/re-use wastes.
- transmission incorporation - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.
Water Use - cooling water intake/discharge effects. - Intake: fish diversions, fish screens.

Discharge: tempering, monitoring of discharge
temperatures, use of expended thermal energy

for other purposes (i.e. aquaculture).

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:
: Air - emissions and effluent concentrations and types - flue gas treatment
dependent upon make-up of refuse material. May
include: NOx; HCI; SOx; CO; hydrocarbons; organic
acids, Cl; mercury gas; PCB's; dust; particulate matter.
- odour from waste storage pile. - ensure high turn-over rates for stored refuse;
high burning temperatures, containment, enclosure.
- ash handling, transport and storage dust. - closed transfer systems; dust suppression at silo
discharge for truck or conveyor transport to disposal
site; regular covering and possible | |
landscaping at disposal site.

Water - ash pile drainage. - collection and treatment.

Waste - fly and bottom ash. - re-use/recycle (i.e. backfill, bit and quarry
rehabilitation) - may be restricted due to the
presence of toxic substances (e.g. dioxin).

- approved ash disposal site, lined with impermeable
material for ground water protection (if required);
drainage to liquid waste management system; regular

compaction and covering.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C - 20

: 20

> 30

Table C-9 Non Utility Generation (NUG) - Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (cont'd)

Component
: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Employment

Regional Development

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle
Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects

- limited to moderate depending on scale.

- limited due to small scale.

- limited impact to infrastructure and
services due to scale.
- municipal waste-burning may cause concerns

about traffic, noise, odour.

- air quality and emissions effects of fossil and
waste-burning of concern to environmental community,

health and safety interests.

- affect perception of community and concern

re: health may affect lifestyle.

- most costs and benefits localized.

- may be equity concerns re: waste-burning.

- strong customer preference for NUG, particularly
small hydraulic and cogeneration.

- lower social acceptance for Municipal Solid Waste.
Potential for greater social acceptance if viewed as a

feasible waste management solution as well

Potential Mitigation

- none required by Hydro.

- provincial regulations on operations.

- provincial requirements for environmental

review of private projects.

- impact management by generator.

- provincial licensing and approval requirements

for generation.

- technology to control emissions.

- information programs, community liaison by generator.

- impact management by generator for waste-burning.

- N/A

C- 21

Table C-10 Non Utility Generation (NUG) - Small Hydraulic

: Component
- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
; Resource Use:

Fuel

Land Use

Water Use

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:

Air

Water

Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- water resources

- renewable
- generation site including flooding to establish - wildlife relocation, afforestation to replace flooded
reservoirs (if required) vegetation, resource extraction prior to flooding,
compensation for flood loss, relocation of
affected structures/land-uses — operate as run-of-river
facility, redevelop existing sites where possible.
- access roads - Minimize clearing, use of existing roads, minimize road size.
- aggregate supply - use of on-site material, restore borrow areas.
- transmission incorporation - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- non-consumptive (see Fuel)

- local air quality deterioration (i.e. construction - controlled waste timber/vegetation burning,
dust, slash/vegetation burning). minimize site clearing, road spraying.

- initial reservoir filling (if required — usually - slow consistent filling rate; winter filling,
run-of-river operation), use existing dams and headponds.

- altered flow regimes. - channel modifications (i.e. widening, deepening),

minimize head and modifications, operate
as run-of-river vs. peaking plant.
- increased erosion. - minimize site clearing, bank stabilization
(i.e. vegetation, rip-rap), channel modification,
flow regulation, buffer zones along banks.

- destruction of aquatic habitat/fish stock degradation. - timing of activities (i.e. avoid spawning periods);
reservoir preparation plan for habitat protection;
maintain minimum instream flows; protect spawning
areas; habitat enhancement; stocking headponds.

- wetlands - avoid wetlands, dyking.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
G22

: 44

> 30

> 35

Table C-10 Non Utility Generation (NUG) - Small Hydraulic (cont'd)

Component Potential Effects

Waste - construction wastes (i.e. oils, fuel)
- operation trash, refuse and garbage.
- headpond debris.

- excavation material.

: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment - limited due to small scale.
Regional Development - limited due to small scale.
Local Community Impact - limited due to scale

- small hydro may affect recreational users.
Special / Sensitive Interests - change in quality or quantity of water of concern
to environmental, recreational interests.
Lifestyle - little or no impact for most technologies.

Distribution of Risks & Benefits - low potential for inequity for most technologies.

- most costs and benefits localized.

Social Acceptance - strong social acceptance for NUG, particularly

small hydraulic and cogeneration.

Potential Mitigation |

- dyke storage areas, emergency clean-up procedures.
- approved disposal sites.

- reservoir clearing, reservoir sweeping.

- approved disposal area, utilize in dam

construction where possible.
- none required by Hydro.
- none required by Hydro.
.- operations requirements.
- requirements for environmental review of

private projects.

- licensing and approval requirements for generation.

- possible conditions for Hydro purchases of power.
- technology to control emissions.

- impact management by generator

- N/A

C - 23

Table C-11 Non Utility Generation (NUG) — Natural Gas (Cogeneration)

- Component
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
- Resource Use:

Fuel

Land Use

Water Use

: Emissions/Effulents/Wastes:

Air

Water

Waste

Potential Effects Potential Mitigation

- Natural Gas

- large land-use involved in natural gas and petroleum

extraction/refinement.

- generating site. - use existing industrial site where possible.
- pipeline Right-of-Way - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.
- transmission incorporation. - use existing Right-of-Way where possible.
- N/A. - air-cooled CTUs

Combustion Emissions:

- carbon monoxide

- NO, and C0 - NO, controls.
Non-Combustion Emissions:

- high NO, release from pump compressors.

- fuel transport, handling and storage - pipeline delivery.

emissions/losses.

- inadvertent spills. - dykes around hazardous materials storage facilities.

- provide collection and containment facilities for

storage and handling of hazardous materials where

appropriate; contingency plans for recovery and

environmental protection.

- disposal of operation fluids (i.e. lubricants, coolants) - separate collection and drainage systems,
- operation trash, refuse, garbage. - approved waste disposal site:

controlled incineration.

<Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Appendix C>
C = 24

Baer:

Tyee

$0:

Spee

Table C-11 Non Utility Generation (NUG) — Natural Gas (Cogeneration) (cont'd)

: Component

- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Employment

Regional Development

Local Community Impact

Special / Sensitive Interests

Lifestyle

Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects
- limited due to small scale,
- limited due to small scale.

- limited due to scale.

- air quality and emissions effects of fossil and
waste-burning of concern to environmental

community, health and safety interests.

- little or no impact for most technologies.

- low potential for inequity for most technologies.

- most costs and benefits localized.

- strong social acceptance for NUG, particularly

small hydraulic and cogeneration.

Potential Mitigation

- none required by Hydro.

- provincial operations requirements.

~ provincial requirements for environmental

review of private projects.

- provincial licensing and approval requirements

for generation.

- technology to control emissions.

- impact management by generator.

- N/A

C- 25

Table C-12 Non Utility Generation (NUG) - Wood Waste

Component
: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
: Resource Use:
: Fuel
Land Use
Water Use

: Emissions/Effluents/Wastes:
Air

Water

Waste
: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Employment
Regional Development
Local Community Impact
Special / Sensitive Interests
Lifestyle

Distribution of Risks & Benefits

Social Acceptance

Potential Effects

- wood waste.
- generating site.
- transmission incorporation.

- cooling water intake/discharge effects.

Combustion Emissions:
- carbon monoxide
- NO,
- C05
- particulates

- inadvertent spills.

- disposal of operation fluids (i.e. lubricants, coolants)

- operation trash, refuse, garbage.

- ash

- limited due to small scale.

- may be significant in northern community.

- limited due to small scale but may be significant
in northern community.

- potential indirect effect if energy cost saving
makes industry more competitive.

- limited due to scale.

- may Cause concerns about traffic, noise, odour.

- air quality and emissions effects of waste-burning
of concern to environmental, community, health and
safety interests.

- little or no impact for most technologies.

- low potential for inequity for most technologies.

- most costs and benefits localized.

- strong social acceptance for NUG, particularly

small hydraulic and cogeneration.

Potential Mitigation

- use of existing kiln site where possible.
- use existing Right-of-Way where possible.

- Intake and Discharge design

- NO, controls.

- electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters

- dykes around hazardous materials storage facilities.

- provide collection and containment facilities for
storage and handling of hazardous materials where
appropriate; contingency plans for recovery
and environmental protection.

- separate collection and drainage systems.

- approved waste disposal site; controlled incineration.

- approved waste disposal site.
- none required by Hydro.

- none required by Hydro.

- provincial operations requirements.
- provincial requirements for environmental
review of private projects.

- licensing and approval requirements for generation.
- possible conditions for Hydro purchases of power.
- technology to control emissions.

- impact management by generator.

- N/A

C - 26

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Providing the balance of power : Ontario Hydro's plan to serve customers' electricity needs."

See other formats